Subject:     	 Re: Q. on Penrose arg: why new *physics*?
From:         	"Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Date:         	1997/08/05
Message:	33e7e11

JRStern wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 05 Aug 1997 18:27:54 -0400, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
>  wrote:
> >JRStern wrote:
> >> On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 17:56:07 -0400, "Phil Roberts, Jr."
> >>  wrote:
> >> > ... This also
> >> >implies that the engine in the first "free-thinking"
> >> >artifact is probably going to be a diesel.
> >> ...
> >> As enjoyable as that all is, the connection to Penrose's theories does
> >> not seem to be present in the text, how they say.
> >
> >Explicitly, no.  Implicitly, yes, in the line just before the one
> >you have included above:
> >
> >"Since the explanation I have proposed amounts  to the contention
> > that the most rational species is beginning to exhibit signs of
> > transcending the formalism of nature's fixed objective, it can
> > reasonably be construed as providing evidence and argumentation
> > in support of Lucas/Godel (see newsgroup discussion)."
> 
> Lucas does not require Penrose's physical theories, though they are
> "culturally compatible", as yours is with Lucas'.  A truckload of
> compatible (and all controversial) theories do not constitute the
> empirical evidence you claimed, that got us going.
> 

Ahmen.  But then most of us are able to distinguish between
evidence (e.g., feelings of worthlessness) and theory (e.g.,
the contention that they are "caused" by too much rationality).
Unless, of course, you have a better explanation to offer, in
which case I'm all ears.

-- 

               Phil Roberts, Jr.

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