COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	%refere[s89,jmc]		Report on Goedel's theorem and cognitive science, P. Kugel
C00005 ENDMK
C⊗;
%refere[s89,jmc]		Report on Goedel's theorem and cognitive science, P. Kugel
\magnification=\magstephalf
\vglue 4in
	The paper should not be published.  The distinction it
makes between computable in the limit and computable isn't novel
or very significant.  It is worth at most a footnote in some paper,
and that seems to be what it got in some of Kugel's references.

	It also fails to note some relevant facts, but lack of these
facts isn't my reason for recommending its rejection.  They could
be added.

	1. Given a reasonable system of axioms, say for
arithmetic, it won't be hard to concoct a sentence that it will
eventually reject but not reject in a mere billion (his number)
steps.  Because of the branching, these won't even be deep
results.

	2. Turing would almost certainly not have accepted Kugel's
``Turing's second thesis''.  Turing's work on iterating adding
assertions of consistency to theories through computable tranfinite
ordinal numbers seems to me to go beyond Kugel's notion of thinking.

	If published, I don't think it would lead to an edifying
discussion by BBS commentators.  Many people would reject his
identification of thinking with computing in the limit, but since
Kugel hasn't much more to say, they could only comment at length
by offering their own notions of thinking, and they wouldn't have
space to do it properly.
\bye