Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics,sci.physics.particle,sci.math,sci.math.symbolic,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,alt.memetics,alt.extropians
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: A New Theory of Free Will -- continuation of an Open Letter to Professor Penrose
Message-ID: <jqbDLr4Ht.MG0@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <4df835$ei@imp.fl.net.au> <4dgau9$kob@news.cc.ucf.edu> <4dkmm1$i1n@manuel.anu.edu.au> <4dm581$bmb@knot.queensu.ca>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 19:22:41 GMT
Lines: 20
Sender: jqb@netcom12.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:167026 sci.physics.particle:7626 sci.math:133826 sci.math.symbolic:20882 comp.ai:36326 comp.ai.philosophy:37022 sci.philosophy.meta:23652

In article <4dm581$bmb@knot.queensu.ca>,
Mark Higgins <mark@astro.queensu.ca> wrote:
>Penrose was just saying that we might not be able to simulate a brain
>right now because physics of the interface between macroscopic physics
>and quantum physics (which is poorely understood, if at all) might
>come into play.

Flurple might come into play, too, but Occam guides us as to how much credence
we should give it.

>                "If it's not true, it's well told."

Perhaps we should remove the classes in rhetoric from our philosophy and law
departments.



-- 
<J Q B>

