Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
Message-ID: <jqbDBI12y.GFJ@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t9e1u$1geq@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3tf8lo$2a3@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <jqbDBG022.BIG@netcom.com> <3tor9d$8e5@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 11:54:34 GMT
Lines: 72
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29830 sci.logic:12089

In article <3tor9d$8e5@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>>Could you give _one_ example (page number please) of a claim by Penrose
>>>about his own insight.
>
>>I quote from page 81 of my hardback copy:
>
>>	"Does this mean that the supposedly non-algorithmic mathematical
>>	insight--the insight that allowed us to appreciate the fact that
>>	C<sub k>(k) never stops--is actually algorithmic after all?"
>
>This doesn't seem to me to say anything at all about Penrose' own insight.

You are an idiot.

>Your posting clearly implied that Penrose was claiming
>some special insight which was not shared by others;

You are a liar.

>if that was not your meaning then you expressed yourself badly.

You are an idiot and a liar.

>(Why did you not speak of "mathematical insight" if that is what you meant?)

You are an idiot.

>>Now, unless you want to further your inanity and hypocrisy by attempting some
>>argument that Penrose does not include himself among "us", I suggest that you
>>extend to me the courtesy that you profess, and apologize for wasting my time
>>and for the hostile motivations that led you to make this demand.
>
>If I say "Jim Bolger's intelligence ..." it must be assumed
                ^^^^
>that I am referring to you, not to some class to which you belong.

You are a rude idiot.

>Similarly, when you speak of "Penrose's own insight"
>I assume you are referring specifically to him.

You are an idiot and a liar.

>>And if you want to ask me another of your stupid questions about exactly where
>>in his book Penrose says what it is so obvious to anyone who has read and
>>*comprehended* the book (perhaps you are an AI that Penrose has planted here
>>in an attempt to show the difference between a robot that merely knows how to
>>request page numbers and a real human capable of comprehension), then you
>>should be prepared to provide to me a complete machine-readable version of the
>>book and a suitable search engine, because I have limited time to waste on
>>your foolishness and I do not have a photographic memory; my brain only holds
>>the content of his book *conceptually*, something I'm sure you wish were true
>>of your own.
>
>I interpret all that to mean "I do not have a copy of the book,
>and so cannot give exact references".

You are an idiot.  I have a copy of the book, and I gave an exact reference.

>(You see, it is quite easy to make a statement without abuse.

Your existence is abusive.

>It saves time, and is easier to follow.)

You are an idiot.
-- 
<J Q B>

