From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!plato.phil.ruu.nl!atten Mon May 25 14:07:35 EDT 1992
Article 5887 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!alchemy!plato.phil.ruu.nl!atten
>From: atten@phil.ruu.nl (Mark van Atten)
Subject: Re: penrose
Message-ID: <atten.706786286@groucho.phil.ruu.nl>
Sender: news@phil.ruu.nl
Nntp-Posting-Host: groucho.phil.ruu.nl
Organization: Department of Philosophy, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
References: <2524@ucl-cs.uucp> <1992May1.025230.8835@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May6.220605.26774@unixg.ubc.ca> <1992May8.015202.10792@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu> <27@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 09:31:26 GMT
Lines: 18

sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

>In article <1992May18.194416.27171@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>|Algorithms are fundamentally incomplete.  Turing machines are fundamentally
>|incomplete.  Think.

>Right, but why assume *human* *thought* is complete (in this sense)?
>Is ti really certain that we can *always* jump the rails, so to speak,
>and arrive at the truth.

>This is what Penrose' argument requires, and I find it extremely unlikely.

No, Penrose's argument does not require that we cab *always* jump the rails,
he just argues that there is at least one case where we can (i.e. Goedel's
argument). (Why are so many - including me - always typing cab instead of cab ; see what I mean ? :) )

Best wishes,
Mark.


