From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Jan 21 09:27:29 EST 1992
Article 2924 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan20.214414.16447@oracorp.com>
Date: 20 Jan 92 21:44:14 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 24

Tal Kubo writes:

> What I have argued is that computers will never beat humans even at
> that limited game [of proving mathematical theorems].

You haven't argued it, you have simply asserted it. I don't think that
there is any evidence for your assertion, and you certainly didn't
provide any.

> Computer technology will develop further? Ain't seen nothing, you say?
> Optimism alone is not convincing.  I insist on an equal optimism
> concerning human capabilities.  An unending tower of abstractions,
> of which today's mathematics is just the beginning, will up the ante at
> least as fast as technology can catch up with it.  On what grounds do you
> believe that thought is computable, other than lack of refutation?

I did not claim that there was any other grounds. If you would trace
back through the threads, you will see that I never claimed that AI
would ever be achieved, I simply claimed that there was no evidence
that it was in principle impossible.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


