From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Jan 21 09:27:25 EST 1992
Article 2916 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1912 sci.logic:836 sci.math:5883 comp.ai.philosophy:2916
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic,sci.math,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan20.124249.7832@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 20 Jan 92 17:42:47 GMT
References: <1992Jan19.212725.10371@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
 <1992Jan19.170838.7805@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan19.233811.18340@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Jan19.233811.18340@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

>In article <1992Jan19.170838.7805@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>If you have the means of defining a partial, or, better yet, a linear
>>ordering of "degrees of understanding", please share them with me;
>>otherwise kindly restate your argument in less obfuscatory terms.

DC:
>The point is simply that empirical synthesis may yield understanding of
>how an algorithm works, but that doesn't imply understanding of its
>behaviour (which is required for knowledge of consistency).  e.g. take
>it from me that I understand how this pseudo-code algorithm works:
>
>  for c:=1 to infinity do
>   for a:=1 to c do
>    for b:=1 to c do
>     for n:=3 to c do
>      if (a^n + b^n = c^n) then print "Hmmm...".
>
>but I have no idea whether it ever produces output.

You are being a bit disingenuous here.  "No idea whether it ever produces
output"?  I guess you are prepared to dismiss all empirical evidence to the
contrary, just as you might dismiss the empirical evidence for consistency
of ZFC, which supplements our mathematical intuition in granting our
epistemic entitlement to the use of reflection principles.

MZ:
>>So is strong AI consistent with the thesis that we are inherently incapable
>>of discovering such a program, as Putnam would have me believe?

DC:
>That's correct.  "Strong AI" names a very specific claim, and is not
>a catchall for every view that an AI practitioner might hold.

What specific claim might that be?

>-- 
>Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
>Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
>"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


