Subject:      Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
From:         [email protected] (JRStern)
Date:         1997/08/04
Message 5s4qg0$

On 3 Aug 1997 00:51:49 GMT, [email protected] (Anders N Weinstein)
wrote:
>Suppose for the sake of argument I accept the claim that human
>mathematicians can perform mental feats no computer can (insofar as it
>is acting as a computer.)
>
>Well, so what? In particular, why would the *physical* science of the
>brain have to be revised to account for this? 

The physical science explanation is a possibility.  Penrose attempts
to cut off all other possibilities with his Godelian arguments, which
are invalid, inapplicable, and inappropriate, but make good cocktail
chatter in certain circles.

Joshua Stern
[email protected]