[yendu bwam]

OK, Mr. Tortoise. I am not a pure mathematician, though I have advanced degrees in physics (not a purely unmathematical pursuit, I assure you). I have NO idea what you know and don't. However, I will have the pleasure of referring you to Roger Penrose's several books on this matter, where the mathematics are available to you (and which arise in different ways from Goedel's theorem and computation theory). Roger Penrose is probably Britain's greatest and one of the world's greatest applied mathematicians, and is the inventor of twistor theory in physics. He was Stephen Hawkings graduate counselor, and has co-authored many works of highly mathematical physics in the area of general relativity. He has made numerous contributions to the understanding of black holes and entropy theory. If you read his work (and should you perchance be able to understand it), then come back here for a debate. And if you think you know how to create consciousness out of computer algorithms, let me be the first to say congratulations!, you'll have your Nobel prize shortly. Of course, many serious scientists have been attempting to do this for quite some time with no success. And knowing what I know from Penrose, I am not surprised.

[yendu bwam]

Oh, and by the way, Penrose's proof (that consciousness cannot arise algorithmically) has been spit at and spat at and attacked by many from around the world, but to date has not been crunched. It's very interesting, should you be a mathematician, and has very few weaknesses to it.

[tortoise]

I have NO idea what you know and don't. However, I will have the pleasure of referring you to Roger Penrose's several books on this matter, where the mathematics are available to you (and which arise in different ways from Goedel's theorem and computation theory). Roger Penrose is probably Britain's greatest and one of the world's greatest applied mathematicians, and is the inventor of twistor theory in physics. He was Stephen Hawkings graduate counselor, and has co-authored many works of highly mathematical physics in the area of general relativity. He has made numerous contributions to the understanding of black holes and entropy theory. If you read his work (and should you perchance be able to understand it), then come back here for a debate.

When I said Roger Penrose is a "raving nutter", what I meant is that he is a bit of a crank (not at all unusual for brilliant scientists or mathematicians). I do not dispute his competence at physics and related works, as that is what he is excellent at. However, his competence in one field does not translate to competence in another (Carl Sagan syndrome). His work on consciousness, intelligence, and similar is quite simply, crap. He was writing stuff on that topic in his books that had already been rigorously refuted by the experts in the field before he had even published that garbage. None of the real experts in that field of mathematics take him seriously, and for good reason. His positions on this topic are essentially religious in nature, as he refuses to even address the numerous solid criticisms of his positions (and in some cases outright proofs that his premises are false). He defends his positions when attacked by making even more obtuse and/or unfalsifiable assertions. In other words, his work on the matter is seriously lacking scientific and mathematical integrity, and does not belong in any serious discussion of it. The mathematics he uses for physics is totally unrelated to the mathematics used for fields actually relevant to consciousness and intelligence, so it is ridiculous to think that his expertise in theoretical physics translates into expertise in the other topics. There is no such thing as a universal genius. Einstein was the same way, a real genius in his area of expertise but essentially a crank in others.