Newsgroups: sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,alt.consciousness,sci.cognitive,comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.skeptic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.moneng.mei.com!uwm.edu!msunews!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!lugb!news
From: Douglas Moore
Subject: Re: Review of Shadows of the Mind
Message-ID: <1995Apr1.143159.4043@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>
Sender: news@lugb.latrobe.edu.au (News System)
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 1995 14:31:59 GMT
Organization: La Trobe University, Australia
X-Newsreader: <WinQVT/Net v3.9>
Lines: 140
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:115881 sci.cognitive:7137 comp.ai:28695 sci.philosophy.tech:17351 sci.skeptic:108794

In article <3l6m37$51g@mp.cs.niu.edu>, rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) 
writes:

> What we lack is a good idea of the relevance of the algorithm to the
> system.  Penrose argues that the idea a person is an algorithm is
> patently absurd, and he has written two books on this.  I don't know
> why he has wasted his time writing these books.  Plenty of people
> within AI agree with him that the idea is patently absurd.  My
> earlier reference to the "Systems Reply" was intended to speak to
> that point.
>
> In his attempt to discredit AI, Penrose attempts to argue that if the
> mind is the product of computation, then a person is an algorithm.
> But that is where the absurdity lies, and Penrose's chapter 3 is very
> mushy precisely because he is attempting to prove an absurdity.

Right on.

Now let's get the the heart of Penrose's understanding of AI and computers
in general. It seems that Penrose came to the central thesis underlying his
anti AI stance by reasoning as follows

He was a newcomer to this field and so he starts with the obvious question..
