[dilemma]

>2. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem only applies to systems that are perfectly logically consistent. Not sure how Penrose didn't notice, but humans... aren't.

Why are humans not logically consistent then, if they are as materialists claim, something that can be abstracted with a computer program if we have full information of their workings?

[Chronos]

Um, you seem to be operating on a confusion of ideas. Materialism does not imply that humans are logically consistent. The universe in which we exist is (probably?) a logically consistent system, but that's true for both materialism and non-materialism. The difference between the two is which set of rules the universe runs on, not whether those rule sets are internally consistent.

When I say "systems that are perfectly logically consistent" and "humans... aren't", I'm saying that the ideas humans have in their heads are not logically consistent. It's possible to write down "2+2=5" on a piece of paper, even if 2 plus 2 doesn't actually equal 5, and it's likewise possible for humans to believe "2+2=5" even if 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 5.