Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!asimov
From: asimov@nas.nasa.gov (Daniel A. Asimov)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <DAyFGu.KDp@cnn.nas.nasa.gov>
Lines: 34
Sender: news@cnn.nas.nasa.gov (News Administrator)
Nntp-Posting-Host: wk303.nas.nasa.gov
Organization: NAS - NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
References: <3srv8n$99o@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3suoc1$s79@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie> <3sv3o4$3jk@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Jun 1995 21:53:17 GMT
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29282 sci.logic:11643

>>>>Where does Penrose say that he has "refuted AI" ?
>
>On page 12 he announces that he supports the view:
>
>	Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness,
>	but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated
>	computationally.




In article <3sv3o4$3jk@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <3suoc1$s79@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie> tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy) writes:
>>rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
>>>>Where does Penrose say that he has "refuted AI" ?
>
>On page 12 [of Shadows of the Mind] he announces that he supports the view:
>
>	Appropriate physical action of the brain evokes awareness,
>	but this physical action cannot even be properly simulated
>	computationally.
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

With all due respect, I must say that I don't think that anyone can 
convincingly argue that this description covers AI as a whole.

This refers specifically to properly simulating the physical action
of the (human) brain.  This is not the same thing as being able to solve
some of the same problems -- by any successful computational means -- that the 
human brain can solve.  *This*, I think, is a more accurate description of AI.

--Dan Asimov
