Do you distinguish between Penrose's argument and the older one by Lucas, invoking Gödel's proof that certain facts are non-computable?

I always felt it's basically the same argument, and Lucas's was never really convincing; Hofstadter rebutted it very convincingly in GEB long before Penrose's books came out.

To me, camp C's claim is possible but I don't buy the argument that says it's necessary. So I guess I'm camp A. (D is religion and B seems to me incoherent.)