Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and human mathematical capabilities
Message-ID: <jqbDBK58L.Lp7@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t6tcv$nca@netnews.upenn.edu> <3ts0mf$aa3@netnews.upenn.edu> <3tsj3f$t7g@nnrp.ucs.ubc.ca> <3ttsrp$fo7@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 15:19:33 GMT
X-Original-Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Lines: 25
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29927 sci.logic:12175

In article <3ttsrp$fo7@netnews.upenn.edu>,
Matthew P Wiener <weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>>What are the observations?  Pardon me if I'm incorrect n the attribution, 
>>but you've maintained that humans transcend the Godelian limitations on 
>>many occasions.  Unless you can tell us what the Godelian limitations 
>>ON HUMANS (rather than on some formalization of PA or ZF) are,
>
>If they don't even exist, I'm done.

I see.  So in order for me to correctly assert that X, all I have to do is say
"if X, I'm done".  No actual need for evidence or argument.

>>							        the claim 
>>to have experimental evidence for the non-Goelizability of human 
>>methematical knowledge is unjustified.
>
>They don't even exist.  Try again.

And then drop the conditional, and simply assert "X.  Try again."

Wiener is a liar; he has no such experimental evidence; he cannot, per Goedel.

-- 
<J Q B>

