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!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!dlh Mon May 25 14:06:49 EDT 1992
Article 5807 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!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!edcogsci!dlh
>From: dlh@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Dominik Lukes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Universe is a big place ,,,
Message-ID: <9412@scott.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 May 92 22:34:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: scott.9412
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
Lines: 21

,,, perhaps the biggest. Say! Why do I have to understand the mathematical
part of the Goedel's incompleteness theorem to be able to use it for
speculations about human cognitive ability. Well, I don't want to
solve math problems, it bores me stiff. Anyway, as far as I can judge
all the stuff only hangs on the pressupositions from ordinary life,
supported by our natural language, that "true and unprovable" is
somewhat more sound than "false and provable". How can the math part
enhance my understanding of it. Is it banned to say sentence like "the
natural language reasoning itself exhibits incompleteness,"( as it is
known for some two and a half millenia) without providing mathematical
proof? It is, by all means, more esthetical, but for whats sake?
Kick me, shoot me, but tell me why!

Yours sincere & faithfull,
Dominik.
======================================|
    My spELling iS wobbly.            |  
It's goOd spelling bUt it wobbles     |  
   and tHe letters get iN             | 
      the wrOng plaCes.               |  
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,| .


