Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!dish.news.pipex.net!pipex!soap.news.pipex.net!pipex!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!festival!jeff
From: jeff@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3trblc$em9@netnews.upenn.edu> <jqbDBIEFq.C54@netcom.com> <BILL.95Jul10111232@pfc.nsma.arizona.edu> <jqbDBIt1o.K1t@netcom.com> <3ttuda$j5p@netnews.upenn.edu>
Message-ID: <DBpy5K.x6@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 18:32:08 GMT
Lines: 20
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12415 comp.ai.philosophy:30201

weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>In article <jqbDBIt1o.K1t@netcom.com>, jqb@netcom (Jim Balter) writes:

>>	   However, since he's an open system, a few photons here or
>>there could change his formal system and shift his Goedel sentence,
>>and he could see the light, only to get bogged down somewhere else.

>What light?

>>Of course, the same considerations hold for robots.

>Right.  We humans can always tell them, "OK, this week, you believe in
>Con(ZF)".  Can you describe some other real world interaction that will
>lead a robot to believe in Con(ZF)?  Something more comprehensive than
>a magic incantation like "transducers".

Perhaps he is suggesting that "a few photons" might do it.

-- jd
