Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!sgiblab!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose's new book
Message-ID: <CxzFpL.H0@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> <Cxtx03.FLL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <HULTHAGE.94Oct17130226@torsk.usc.edu>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 17:39:21 GMT
Lines: 37

In article <HULTHAGE.94Oct17130226@torsk.usc.edu> hulthage@torsk.usc.edu (Ingemar Hulthage) writes:
>
>In article <Cxtx03.FLL@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>   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?
>
>It's a judgment call based on the fact that computing, on Turing
>compatible machines, can accomplish many things that used to require a
>human brain. 

Ok.  But do you think all aspects of the brain can be reproduced
digitally?

> I would find it most interesting to consider
>alternatives to the Church-Turing hypotheses, but I fail to see any
>value in Penrose's hypothesis.

What does the Church-Turing thesis (is that way you're talking
about?) have to do with it?

>Do you have any alternative to present ?

Sure: that digital computation isn't enough.

-- jd



