Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose's new book
Message-ID: <Cxtx03.FLL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <HULTHAGE.94Oct11135202@torsk.usc.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 1994 18:07:15 GMT
Lines: 11

In article <HULTHAGE.94Oct11135202@torsk.usc.edu> hulthage@torsk.usc.edu (Ingemar Hulthage) writes:
>
>That Church-Turing computation can produce AI is of course only a
>hypothesis.  However, that a non-computable process would be needed for
>AI is also just a hypothesis, moreover I can see no evidence in
>support of it.  Therefore, it seems to me, good scientific methodology
>suggests that AI research should continue based on the most likely
>known hypothesis.  

How do you know it's the most likely?

