Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.science
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!news.service.uci.edu!unogate!stgprao
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <CxxCyu.2FB@unocal.com>
Sender: news@unocal.com (Unocal USENET News)
Organization: Unocal Corporation
References: <381d8h$5tn@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 1994 14:44:53 GMT
Lines: 14
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:96926 sci.skeptic:92217 sci.psychology:28185 comp.ai.philosophy:21132 sci.bio:22479 sci.philosophy.meta:14179

In article <381d8h$5tn@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>,
Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I suggest you read the nitty-gritty physics in Penrose's book. The
>Chomskiest approach is mere words without any contact with real experiments
>as far as I can see. Penrose's picture of the micotubules is quote beautiful
>and empirical. It's a real breakthrough but if you do not have the
>relevant background in physics it will escape you. A purely Chomskian
>approach is a linguistic delusion brilliant though it may be - it is
>still Medieval in its methodology - welcome to the 21st Century.

I have a 180-degree opposing view that Penrose's claims are thinly
tested speculation, and much of cognitive psychology is based on
experimental observations, including linguistics.

