From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!scylla!daryl Wed Oct 14 14:58:19 EDT 1992
Article 7180 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Oct8.133738.1281@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:37:38 GMT
Lines: 32

In article <burt.718398109@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>,
burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees) writes:

>Actually, Penrose gives much better arguments against machine
>intelligence than this.  The Godel argument, for example...  He is
>very clear that he is suggesting the quantum principle only as a
>possible way of explaining how human cognition might work.  Emphasis
>on the might; and that it does not alter his arguments against machine
>intelligence if this explanation turns out to be wrong.

Penrose' Godel argument against machine intelligence is ridiculous.
When I first heard a second-hand account of Penrose' arguments, I felt
that something must have been left out; there was no way a man with
the reputation of Penrose could have made such a fallacious argument.
So I bought the book, _The Emperor's New Mind_ to see for myself what
exactly Penrose' arguments were. Yep, they were every bit as silly as
I thought they were.

The arguments Penrose gives are not even original, they are
essentially the same as the arguments that Lucas gave much earlier
(although for some reason, Penrose denies this). And they are the same
arguments that almost any reasonable bright person might come up with
on first reading of Godel's theorem. (Except on further reflection,
they usually come to the realization that the arguments are wrong.)

If you like, I can give you a detailed explanation of what is wrong
with Penrose' arguments.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY



