Subject:		Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
From:      		"Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date:       		1997/08/04
Message:	33e5fc23

JRStern wrote:
> 
> 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.
>

Oh yea.  And with the minor aside that there is now empirical evidence
to corroborate his position (feelings of worthlessness).   But then, 
cognitive scientists are much too busy being
oh so scientific to take notice of such minor details.  I mean, its
not as if feelings of worthlessness are really and truly a part
of the fabric of nature, now, is it?


-- 

               Phil Roberts, Jr.

Feelings of Worthlessness from the Perspective 
     of So-Called Cognitive Science
  http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5476