Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!nntp.sei.cmu.edu!news.psc.edu!hudson.lm.com!netline-fddi.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and human mathematical capabilities
Message-ID: <jqbDBG20y.E4p@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t6tcv$nca@netnews.upenn.edu> <BILL.95Jul6143157@ca2.nsma.arizona.edu> <jqbDBCzMy.G1J@netcom.com> <3tkpqr$88l@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 10:19:46 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29782 sci.logic:12044

In article <3tkpqr$88l@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>Yeah.  So what does Goedel have to say about empirical proof and
>>scientific induction?  Hmm?  "Mathematicians know X" and "TMs cannot
>>prove X" are orthogonal, telling us nothing about whether or not
>>mathematicians are equivalent to TMs.  This is so obvious that one must
>>look to ideology to explain how Penrose et. al. miss it.
>
>Could you please give a page reference
>to the assertion of Penrose which you are disputing here.

Yes; this is discussed in pages i-457.  However, you might want to focus on
chapters 2 and 3, you silly goose, especially the bottom of page 81 where he
confuses 'knows' with "ascertain mathematical truths by means of
... algorithmic procedures".


-- 
<J Q B>

