<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 1, 2010, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">organic brains do better than computers at the highest level of<br>mathematical creativity.</span></blockquote><div><br></div>Creativity is a moving target, as soon as a computer can do something <font class="Apple-style-span" size="7"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 36px;">pundits tell us that the thing in question wasn't really creative after all.</span></font><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: normal; "> </span></span></div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite">it is this rather than the ability to have feelings, produce art etc. that Roger Penrose used in<br>his case against AI.</blockquote><br></div><div>The thing I don't understand is that if the human brain makes use of quantum mechanical principles to work its magic why can't we factor numbers better than computers?</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><br></body></html>