RE: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?

From: Ben Goertzel (
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 09:55:57 MDT

yeah ok ok, you're right... it's been a long while since I read that

I do recall that, when I talked to Penrose about this (this was the late
80's), his formulations got more and more extreme the longer our
conversation went on ... and then he changed the topic to quasicrystals ;-)

What Penrose seemed to believe, when I pressed him on it, was that humans
have some kind of mystical creative force inside them, which gives them
*infinite potential* to solve problems and come up with creative ideas.
He'd admit that, intuitively, the odds of person P solving problem X is
generally very low; but he's reluctant to apply probability theory to people
in this way, because he's not even sure that peoples' minds live inside
measurable spaces....

He's both a brilliant and reasonable guy, and if any of us were to debate
him about these matters, he would not suffer a pathetic and crushing defeat,
although an impartial judge might assess his position as sorely lacking in

ben g

> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On Behalf Of Christian
> Szegedy
> Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:14 AM
> To:
> Subject: Re: Human mind not Turing computable according to Eliezer?
> > The two arguments are essentially equivalent;
> It is definitely completely different to find
> *one* single problem that I can solve (although I
> am not supposed to) to stating that *each*
> human can solve *any* problem (your Premise 2).
> It is certainly not a "minor reformulation", even if
> Penrose did not mind it... :)

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT