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!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
Message-ID: <DBMB1v.MBF@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <3tjrr2$4ft@cnn.Princeton.EDU> <3tp <3tt84c$lro@aurora.cs.athabasca <3u0vmm$6ns@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 19:20:19 GMT
Lines: 32
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:30012 sci.logic:12256

In article <3u0vmm$6ns@aurora.cs.athabascau.ca>,
Burt Voorhees <burt@cs.athabascau.ca> wrote:
.........
>In particular, strong AI + Godel implies
>fundamental limits to human reason, and
>would seem to say that there are things which
>are in principle _unknowable_.  This is a
>rejection of the ancient idea that reason

A lot of ancient ideas turned out to be wrong, for instance that Earth is 
flat, or the Earth is in the center of the Universe. 
Now, I am not sure what you mean by _unknowable_. If you mean something
which we can know nothing about, does it make sense to say that something we
cannot even in principle know about exists? Wittgenstein says no and I agree.

>is adaquate as a source of reliable knowledge

This is certainly an incorrect idea, we definitely also need observations.
Armchair philosophy just won't do it.

>and could be considered as an argument for
>some sort of New Age viewpoint.  (Send me
>from beyond the Godel horizon!!!!!!!!)
>
>bv

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
