Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!unc!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb From: geb@cadre.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion,net.flame Subject: Re: A Conversation With Sir John Eccles (tired of Rosen!) Message-ID: <127@cadre.UUCP> Date: Tue, 1-Jan-85 15:03:38 EST Article-I.D.: cadre.127 Posted: Tue Jan 1 15:03:38 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 4-Jan-85 04:51:26 EST References: <79@decwrl.UUCP>, <345@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh. Lines: 16 Xref: watmath net.religion:5203 net.flame:7456 It seems like extended quotes from authorities such as Sir John Eccles concerning subjects about which they are not authorities serve little. If Sir John is on the net, and would like to enter his own arguments it would be interesting to hear them, but second hand quotes out of some journalist's interview can hardly be authoratative. Of course some scientists are religious, so what? A scientist is just a man like anyone else and is entitled to his beliefs. Unless he is making a claim that he has used his special skill in science to discover something about the nature of God, (and I don't see that in Sir John's words) why should his opinions carry any more weight than those of anyone else? Sir John is a well known opponent of the idea that man can create a truly intelligent machine. We probably will find out within the next century whether he is right or not.