From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Tue Jan 28 12:15:02 EST 1992
Article 2959 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.180618.3211@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1992 18:06:18 GMT

Mikhail Zeleny writes:

> 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.

Mikhail, it is obvious that we have completely different ideas about
what constitutes a sound argument. Perhaps our discussions have seemed
so pointless and because of a fundamental incompatibility of our
respective thought processes.

> 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.

You are completely mistaken. I am neither a formalist, nor a
verificationist, and I have made no arguments that depend on the truth
of any particular philosophical position. When I say "There is no
evidence for X" or "There is no proof of X", I mean precisely that, no
more, no less. I don't mean that X is false, or that X is meaningless,
or that people who believe X are stupid. You read too much into the
fact that someone disagrees with you.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


