Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books,rec.arts.sf.science
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!hookup!swrinde!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <CxzG2n.o5@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: <37s8hp$mch@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <JMC.94Oct18150624@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 1994 17:47:11 GMT
Lines: 19
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:96993 sci.skeptic:92334 sci.psychology:28213 comp.ai.philosophy:21162 sci.bio:22498 sci.philosophy.meta:14194

In article <JMC.94Oct18150624@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> jmc@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il (McCarthy John) writes:
>I see nothing in mind that requires more than classical physics.
>Indeed it can all be done with ordinary computer programs.  Penrose's
>arguments to the contrary in his _The Emperor's New Mind_ are
>fallacious and ignorant of the entire artificial intelligence
>technical literature.  Not one of his more than 200 references is to
>that literature.  I would be surprised if he has read any AI for his
>second book.

Most of AI has little, if anything, to do with these issues.

Indeed, most of AI would still make sense even if Penrose, Searle
et al were right.

AI researchers should resist being tied to this philosophical
dispute.

-- jeff

