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: <Cy5D9s.1Ds@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.94Oct17130226@torsk.usc.edu> <CxzFpL.H0@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <HULTHAGE.94Oct20154116@torsk.usc.edu>
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 1994 22:32:16 GMT
Lines: 52

In article <HULTHAGE.94Oct20154116@torsk.usc.edu> hulthage@torsk.usc.edu (Ingemar Hulthage) writes:
>
>In article <CxzFpL.H0@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>...
>   do you think all aspects of the brain can be reproduced digitally?
>
>I don't know what you mean by "all aspects".  If we limit the
>discussion to objective criteria on information processing
>performance, I would say that, the hypothesis that the performance of
>the brain can be reproduced digitally, is very plausible.  However, I
>wouldn't be shocked if I learned that some special physical device,
>quantum mechanical or otherwise, is need.  What I object strongly to,
>is the belief that no device, of human making, is capable of
>intelligence, consciousness etc., on a human level.  My impression is
>that this is what Penrose and Searle believes.

That's not what Searle believes (to judge from his writings at least),
and I don't think it's what Penrose believes either.

Searle's argument is not against man-made devices but against
the sufficiency of merely running the right program.

>   > 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?
>
>Is this a quiz ?

No.  I askjed because the C-T thesis addresses a very different issue
so far as I can tell.  So I want to know what you have in mind.

>   >Do you have any alternative to present ?
>
>   Sure: that digital computation isn't enough.
>
>I note that you present no evidence for this hypothesis. 

Nor did you present any for the alternative.

> Leaving that
>aside, what interesting consequences or avenues of research does it
>lead you to ?

It would lead me to avoid certain approaches.  (It's not actually
my view, so it doesn't actually lead me to anything.)

-- jeff


