From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Jan  9 10:34:23 EST 1992
Article 2584 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2584 sci.logic:764 sci.philosophy.tech:1768
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <5922@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jan 92 23:55:59 GMT
References: <1992Jan5.171147.27621@oracorp.com> <1992Jan5.194731.15766@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 11

In article <1992Jan5.194731.15766@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>Check out the multiple review of Penrose in the December 1990 issue
>of Behavioral and Brain Sciences.  A number of the commentators
>(including me) make essentially this point -- which is surely
>the most obvious problem with Penrose's argument.  Penrose's reply
>consists largely of bluster, and is extremely unconvincing.

I read it and have almost the opposite impression.  I'm not
very convinced by Penrose's arguments, but many of the the 
AI replies in that issue were extremely weak.  I ended up
thinking better of Penrose than I had before.


