Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!news.iag.net!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.nic.surfnet.nl!sun4nl!cwi.nl!olaf
From: olaf@cwi.nl (Olaf Weber)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
In-Reply-To: weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu's message of 10 Jul 1995 14:10:53
	GMT
Message-ID: <DBLM6I.G8s@cwi.nl>
Sender: news@cwi.nl (The Daily Dross)
Nntp-Posting-Host: havik.cwi.nl
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
References: <3t0tn4$p32@netnews.upenn.edu> <jqbDBD193.Iv5@netcom.com>
	<95Jul9.214427edt.6061@neat.cs.toronto.edu>
	<3tqldi$bvb@saba.info.ucla.edu> <jqbDBI63F.LFn@netcom.com>
	<3trcdd$em9@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 10:23:05 GMT
Lines: 23
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12241 comp.ai.philosophy:29995

In article <3trcdd$em9@netnews.upenn.edu>, weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

> If the probabilistic methods involve a pseudorandom number
> generator, then Goedel/Lucas/Penrose win again.

> If the probabilistic methods are genuine random numbers, you as
> might as well agree that Penrose was right to insist that we rely on
> quantum mechanics upstairs.

Is the introduction of genuine random numbers sufficient to create a
non-algoritmic system?

My reading of TENM and SOTM is that Penrose needs something stronger
than the mere introduction of genuine randomness in the brain, since
that alone cannot guarantee the correctness of any insights produced.

Whatever emerges from the mircotubules in Penrose's vision has to be
decidedly non-random as well as non-algorithmic for his argument to
hold water.

So this random-number issue is just a red herring.

-- Olaf Weber
