From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Thu Jan 16 17:21:58 EST 1992
Article 2740 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan15.142429.1583@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1992 14:24:29 GMT

> Start with formalism, end up with strong AI.  One way to beat Searle,
> Penrose, & Co., not to mention small fry like yours truly, is to deny that
> we are capable of any understanding that transcends mindless symbol
> manipulation.

Of course. Penrose and Searle claimed to have proofs that human
understanding went beyond symbol manipulation. If it is consistent to
deny the conclusion, then that shows that the proof is wrong.

> Put another way, when Frege argues that mathematics differs from a game
> of chess by having a cognitive content, your move would be to ask: "What
> content?"

I would argue against Frege in the other direction: I believe that a
game of chess *does* have cognitive content. I think it is obvious
that mathematics has content, but I don't think it is obvious that it
has a content that goes beyond formal reasoning.

> Given the evident infallibility of this move, I wonder why you
> bother to keep this conversation going.  One of the main purposes of a
> philosophical discussion is to bring to light the fundamental assumptions
> of the parties; given that we have done so, I am ready to declare this
> discussion over and done with.

Okay.

> Do you consider *your* beliefs to be evidence?  If so, do you
> believe yourself to be capable of reasoning about the standard model
> of ZFC, per my discussion above?  If so, you have evidence that your
> understanding goes beyond formal reasoning;

I disagree. I don't think that you need to have a complete
characterization of the standard model in order to reason about the
standard model. This is borne out by the fact that all correct
human reasoning about the standard model seems straight-forwardly
formalizable.

> if not, let's agree to disagree.

Okay.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



