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!news.duke.edu!agate!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: <jqbDBI21x.HKp@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t9e1u$1geq@news.doit.wisc.edu> <3tor9d$8e5@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <3tp5jd$376@agate.berkeley.edu> <3tp8ai$c32@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 12:15:33 GMT
Lines: 74
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29831 sci.logic:12090

In article <3tp8ai$c32@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>Edward Faith <epfaith@aol.com> writes:
>
>>>This doesn't seem to me to say anything at all about Penrose' own insight.
>>>Your posting clearly implied that Penrose was claiming
>>>some special insight which was not shared by others;
>>>if that was not your meaning then you expressed yourself badly.
>
>>No it did not.  Jim Balter wrote:
>
>>>>All of
>>>>Penrose's claims, about his own insights and those of other mathematicians,
>>>>are epiphenomenological.
>
>This sentence is ambigous, and is therefore expressed badly.

You are an idiot who cannot spell and cannot read.

>I took it to mean that Penrose made certain claims about his own insights,
>and other claims about the insights of mathematicians in general.

You are an idiot who cannot comprehend the English language.

>You are saying -- if I understand you correctly --
>that the claims refer to (Penrose & other mathematicians).

Clear as day.  I did not say "Penrose's claims about his own insights and his
claims about other mathematicians".  With only one "claims" and only one
"about" and a comma after "claims", only a complete illiterate could
misconstrue the meaning.

>I'm not sure that the sentence _can_ actually be understood in this sense.

But it already has by others, you fool.

>In any case if that was meant why include "his own" at all?

Uh, because Penrose's entire book is driven by his insights.  Because he
speaks of insights that he believes he has and is attempting to lead the
reader to have also, which the context of the quote I gave.

>Compare: "I owe John and other mathematicians money".

You get an F in composition.  This is grammatically weak and is very different
from what I wrote.  You might try "I stole John's money and that of his
friends".

>Perhaps this could logically mean that I do not owe any money to John,
>but do to other mathematicians;
>but I think it would be misleading if used in that sense.

This is a non sequitur and the babblings of a fool.

>However, this is a point of supreme insignificance,

But one you created and insist upon dwelling on.

>and takes us away from discussion of Penrose' excellent book,
>and its even better predecessor, "The Emperor's New Mind".

It is you who are taking us away.  *I* discussed the book.  I'm still waiting
for some sort of substantive response to my posting instead of these idiotic
diversions about page numbers and brain-damaged miscontruals of simple English
sentences.

Oh, but of course, Penrose wrote a wonderful book and he's so polite and he
responds to everyone's arguments so we don't actually have to address the
*content*, do we?  What a dolt you are.


-- 
<J Q B>

