Penrose argument, while it can be challenged, is actually much more careful than dismissals here suggest. For instance people talking about 'humans are not con

Penrose argument, while it can be challenged, is actually much more careful than dismissals here suggest. For instance people talking about 'humans are not consistent', we are talking about effort directed into a well specified formal domain, and after long term reflection. So, of course, people make mistakes in mathematics all the time, but we are talking about consistency after intense review over long period of time. We write a program, and cant find the bug even if we look at it for a google years. To the claim, 'Godel statement is not interesting relative to other statements', the goal is that to demonstrate non-algorithmic nature of some human activity, which itself would be a big deal if true. A more qualified version of the LP claim can be expressed as follows 'One of the following is true 1) The activity of humans in some formal domain(like mathematics) is inconsistent in a deep way(not routine mistakes). 2)Humans are reflective consistent, algorithmic but will never have access to the source code(a claim about limits about brain research). 3) We are reflective consistent, can access source code, but wont be able to see why the source itself is consistent.'