Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!mp.cs.niu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBItDy.Knu@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3trblc$em9@netnews.upenn.edu> <jqbDBIEFq.C54@netcom.com> <3ts3kf$aa3@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 22:05:57 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Lines: 13
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12141 comp.ai.philosophy:29888

In article <3ts3kf$aa3@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>Refering to human phenomena in terms of humans is not anthropomorphic,
>nor is it circular.
>
>All together now: UH DUH.

"thinking", "intelligence", "consciousness", "seeing mathematical truths",
"believing", are all human phenomena, so defining them in terms of humans,
such that only humans qualify, is not circular.  No, not to a circle jerk.
-- 
<J Q B>

