From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!uunet!mcsun!sunic2!sics. Mon May 25 14:06:27 EDT 1992
Article 5767 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!sparkyfs.erg.sri.com!ames!agate!spool.mu.edu!mips!mips!munnari.oz.au!uunet!mcsun!sunic2!sics.
se!sics.se!torkel
>From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: penrose
Message-ID: <1992May20.074423.4405@sics.se>
Date: 20 May 92 07:44:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: sics.1992May20.074423.4405
References: <1992May8.015202.10792@news.media.mit.edu>
	<1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<1992May19.025328.5332@news.media.mit.edu>
	<1992May20.010756.27980@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@sics.se
Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
Lines: 9
In-Reply-To: nlc@media.mit.edu's message of Wed, 20 May 1992 01:07:56 GMT

In article <1992May20.010756.27980@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu 
(Nick Cassimatis) writes:

   >Of course, even if human beings turned out to be consistent (which is
   >a ludicrous belief), would it be an interesting or insightful way to
   >think of them, study them and/or attempt to reproduce them?

  I'd say this belief is unintelligible rather than ludicrous. What
is "consistent" applied to humans supposed to mean in this discussion?


