From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Nov 26 12:32:42 EST 1991
Article 1613 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1133 comp.ai.philosophy:1613
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Zeleny (was Re: Searle
Message-ID: <1991Nov26.021425.8273@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 91 02:14:25 GMT
References: <1991Nov24.224724.2149@arizona.edu> <5691@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov25.183929.2155@arizona.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 23

In article <1991Nov25.183929.2155@arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>In article <1991Nov25.103050.5868@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>MZ:
>>Penrose argues that humans have mathematical intuitions; Searle argues for
>>causal powers of human brains.  I argue that any system capable of denoting
>>must in some way be capable of infinite recursion.  Can you tell the
>>difference between an assumption and an argument?
>
>Zeleny does not argue, that's the problem.  He just gives names.
>I am not interested in refuting eighteen misguided philosophers
>who didn't even agree with each other.  The claim that humans
>are capable of infinite recursion is highly, um, counterintuitive.

  "counterintuitive"?  My.  You are generous.  I call it obvious garbage.

  Most of the humans I know find it a difficult struggle to recurse to a
depth of two.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


