Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBIEq2.Csz@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbDBD193.Iv5@netcom.com> <95Jul9.214427edt.6061@neat.cs.toronto.edu> <3trae2$em9@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 16:49:14 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Lines: 14
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12120 comp.ai.philosophy:29864

In article <3trae2$em9@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>That's not a fallacy.  The only known way for Turing machines to "know" is
>to provide the equivalent of formal proofs,

Where did you get such a bizarre idea?  Since humans have other ways of
knowing, this entails the claim that humans are not TM-equivalent, which makes
it rather, um, circular.  This supposed limitation on "ways of knowing" by TMs
seem to me to be the result of extremely naive ontological notions.


-- 
<J Q B>

