Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!festival!jeff
From: jeff@festival.ed.ac.uk (J W Dalton)
Subject: Re: Penrose Argument Caveats (was Re: Penrose and human math
References: <3vifkv$d77@sylvia.smith.edu> <3vivis$72l@netnews.upenn.edu> <3vlhrv$klp@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3vlm90$4a6@netnews.upenn.edu> <3vp91q$avp@sun4.bham.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <DD1wxt.Ms8@festival.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 1995 16:10:40 GMT
Lines: 52
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:31485 sci.logic:13808

axs@cs.bham.ac.uk (Aaron Sloman) writes:

>weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>> Date: 1 Aug 1995 16:54:56 GMT
>> In article <3vlhrv$klp@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs (Neil Rickert) writes:

>> ......

>> >Perhaps some AI people make the allegation you suggest, but it is far
>> >from a necessary assumption of AI.
>[MPW]
>> So why do AI people bother to even react to Penrose's book?  If he isn't
>> talking about what they do, what do they care?

>You know the answer very well: because of his stature he is capable
>of influencing funding agencies, potential students (and their
>parents). I.e. he is a potential serious threat to anything that he
>attacks, coherently or otherwise.

I've wondered.  The usual reason given in comp.ai.phil for the reaction
to Penrose is that he claims he's _proved_ something he hasn't.  So it's
really all about protecting funding?  Another reason to side with
JQB against Weemba (as in one of your recent messages), I suppose...

In any case, I think the AI community is wrong to make so much of
Penrose (and of Searle).  Most AI work would still make sense even
if Penrose and Searle were entirely right.  For instance, even the
mathematical reasoning work at Edinburgh could still make sense,
despite Penrose, just as formal system can still make sense after
Godel.

But by making such a fuss, AI folk make it seem that all AI
really is at stake.  Even worse, their arguments against Penrose
and Searle are often rather weak, and they often show little
understanding of why anyone might be skpetical of AI in the
first place.  Bringing up Uri geller when someone questions
the Turing Test doesn't help either.

However, there often are some fundamental issues at stake, and
one of them can be seen, from time to time, in the Penrose dispute.
Those arguing against Penrose disagree with each other about
humans and about machines.  Some say the Godel-based limits apply
to both, others that they apply to neither.  What unites them
against the common enemy is the view that humans and machines
are in the same boat.   Though they don't agree about which
boat that is, this disagrement is usually set aside.

Why people feel so strongly that humans and machines are in the
same boat is not clear to me.

-- jd
