Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgigate.sgi.com!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hplntx!curry
From: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry)
Subject: Re: Zeleny on predictability
Sender: news@hpl.hp.com (HPLabs Usenet Login)
Message-ID: <DCsoAM.I38@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 1995 16:25:34 GMT
References: <DCLEIC.E01@hpl.hp.com> <3vokli$fcg@saba.info.ucla.edu> <DCqtGM.Iww@hpl.hp.com> <3vrdp6$98m@saba.info.ucla.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: saiph.hpl.hp.com
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories, Palo Alto, CA
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic,sci.cognitive
Lines: 36
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:32170 comp.ai.philosophy:31282 sci.logic:13546 sci.cognitive:8821

: curry@hpl.hp.com (Bo Curry) writes:
: >This whole argument seems often to be going around in circles.
: >Your claim (and Penrose's) depends on demonstrating (a) that
: >machines are subject to fundamental limitations on their
: >possible knowledge, (b) that humans are not subject to
: >similar limitations, and (c) that the limitations so
: >distinguishing humans from machines are in fact important ones.
: >Indeed, all three points have been addressed. However, it
: >seems to me that the rules and definitions change between
: >the answers y'all give to (a) and to (b).

Michael Zeleny (zeleny@oak.math.ucla.edu) wrote:
: This is a point at which it becomes hard to eschew Weemba's trademark
: conversational strategies.  "It seems to me" just does not cut it as a
: meaningful rebuttal.  Either specify a point of disagreement, or admit
: that it rests on pre-rational considerations.

I could have said "it is the case", with precisely the same semantic
content. Don't quibble.

The points of disagreement have been raised and ably argued by
others. My statement here (whose length is constrained by
external boundary conditions) is to be taken as a synopsis of
the state of the argument, not as an argument itself.

: >I guess we won't come to agreement now. But I find Penrose's
: >argument, and its defense here, very unsatisfying. I've
: >enjoyed listening in on [the more civil parts of] the
: >discussion, though.

: Agreement is vastly overrated.  All intellectual advances originate in
: confrontation.

In this, we agree.

Bo
