From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy.osf.org!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!kubo Tue Jan 28 12:14:52 EST 1992
Article 2950 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!paperboy.osf.org!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!kubo
>From: kubo@zariski.harvard.edu (Tal Kubo)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.093146.7862@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 14:31:44 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Jan21.093146.7862
References: <1992Jan20.214414.16447@oracorp.com>
Sender: Tal Kubo
Followup-To: <1992Jan20.214414.16447@oracorp.com>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 48
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

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

Please respond in good faith, or not at all.  It is customary to
*read* an article before responding to it.  If you must dismiss my
conclusions without answering the arguments, then either quote more
rigorously, or have the courtesy to include message numbers.

>
>> 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.
>

Aside from shifting the burden of thought onto your opponents, your position
is rather disingenuous.  In fact, you asserted that human reasoning can be
adequately formalized in first-order ZFC.  In three articles, I offered
some arguments against this notion.  Your responses have thus far consisted
of Pavlovian incantations of the AI catechism, some absurdities on heavier
than air flight, and a buzzing parakeet chant of 'squawk, evidence'.

I contributed to this thread with the hope of probing your position on AI,
without appeal to gedankenexperiments on the halting problem (which I see
as analogous to doing philosophy with lifeboat problems).  If you wish to
address any of my arguments, please go ahead.  But if you are responding
only for the sake of having the last word, you are just wasting time and
bandwidth.

>Daryl McCullough
>ORA Corp.
>Ithaca, NY

Tal Kubo   kubo@zariski.harvard.edu


