From: "Phil Roberts, Jr." 
Subject: Re: Robot Evolution
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:08:01 -0500 (EST)

Inman Harvey wrote:
> Tim Tyler wrote:
>>My impression is that the only folk who reject the fundamentals
>>of the brain-computer analogy are people like Roger Penrose
>>and John Searle - i.e. those whose world view in the area is
>>totally muddled.
> Well I would agree that Penrose is totally muddled on this 

I have always thought the Godel argument constitutes a pretty
good ARGUMENT against a computational view of the mind.  Where
I think Lucas went wrong was in his claim that Godel constitutes
a PROOF against computationalism.  You can't prove empirical
assertions, you can only marshall evidence.  That's why all
scientific theories are tentatively true until the next

I can't recall to what
extent Penrose claimed Godel as a proof rather than an argument
against computationalism.  But as an argument, I am definitely
in the Lucas/Penrose camp.  Can you provide a brief overview of
why you consider Penrose "totally muddled" on this issue?