I'm not sure why you'd think anyone would flame you for the article. It was interesting, and I enjoyed the author's position. I don't have the time to go into what I think are the weaknesses and strengths of both sides of the argument (besides it looks like these were covered in earlier posts). However, I would say that I find it interesting that Penrose admits that the mind does not work like a computer, but at the same time he feels that the mind will be understood by "new" laws of physics. What I find interesting here is that the laws of physics as we understand them work primarily in a bianry fashion, in other words, computer-like.
He dismisses a "God of the gaps," but at the same time has faith that his "math of the gaps" will be sufficient. I think Penrose's arguments leave a gaping hole plenty wide enough to allow for God