Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!dcs.ed.ac.uk!cnews
From: Alan Smaill <smaill@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Godel, Lucas, Penrose, and Putnam
In-Reply-To: heck@fas.harvard.edu's message of 26 Dec 1994 18:11:22 GMT
Message-ID: <SMAILL.94Dec26213923@papa.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: University of Edinburgh
References: <3ddp99$tc@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <1994Dec25.162020.17458@Princeton.EDU>
	<3dn10a$7i0@decaxp.harvard.edu>
Date: Mon, 26 Dec 1994 21:39:23 GMT
Lines: 22
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:24065 sci.logic:9193

Richard Heck writes:
In article <3dn10a$7i0@decaxp.harvard.edu> heck@fas.harvard.edu (Richard Heck) writes:

heck> Arguments that 'we are not Turing machines' typically take the
heck> following form (and Penrose's arguments are no different). Find
heck> some function which can not be computed by any Turing machine,
heck> and then argue that 'we' can compute that function. In Penrose's
heck> case, from what I've read here, the generality of his claim
heck> would appear to be somewhat obscured by the way he presents the
heck> argument. He is committed to claiming, it seems to me, that he
heck> can verify (know to be true) the Godel sentence of any
heck> consistent system. 

He specifically denies that he makes this claim, in his response to
critics  in Brain and Behavioral Science.


-- 
Alan Smaill                       email: A.Smaill@ed.ac.uk
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science   tel: 44-31-650-2710
University of Edinburgh           
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK.            
