From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wupost!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Jan 21 09:27:42 EST 1992
Article 2949 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2949 sci.philosophy.tech:1922
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!wupost!think.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.000728.7850@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 05:07:27 GMT
References: <1992Jan20.214414.16447@oracorp.com>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 62
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Jan20.214414.16447@oracorp.com> 
daryl@oracorp.com writes:

>Tal Kubo writes:

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

DMC:
>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.

You are doing it again, Daryl: if someone's reasoning displeases you, your
displeasure constitutes prima facie evidence that no argument was involved
in causing it.  Please refer to Tal's articles for arguments, which
incidentally have the advantage over your own, of being wholly bereft of
stupid assertions like the one claiming erstwhile lack of evidence for the
possibility of heavier-than-air flight.

TK:
>> 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?

DMC:
>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.

Have a taste of your own medicine: you haven't argued it, you have simply
asserted it.  Nothing that you have so far said on the Penrose thread has
managed to refute his argument that his ability to reflect on the meaning
of a formal system is non-algorithmic in nature; likewise, none of your
criticisms of Searle have managed to knock down his argument that the
Turing test can be passed Chinese Room style, without understanding.  You
claim that your opponents rely on hidden premisses, all the while relying
on the sort of formalist and verificationist dogma that has been thoroughly
discredited over the past 50 years.  In short, you are steadfastly refusing
to judge your own claims by the same standard you apply to your opponents.
Where I come from, we have a name for this sort of behavior; look it up.

>Daryl McCullough
>ORA Corp.
>Ithaca, NY

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: 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            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


