From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!t.Stanford.EDU!ginsberg Thu Oct  8 10:11:30 EDT 1992
Article 7142 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai:4655 comp.ai.neural-nets:4584 comp.ai.philosophy:7142 sci.psychology:4754
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!stanford.edu!CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU!t.Stanford.EDU!ginsberg
>From: ginsberg@t.Stanford.EDU (Matthew L. Ginsberg)
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <1992Oct7.151533.7822@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University
References: <BvM75v.AEF@eis.calstate.edu> <26536@castle.ed.ac.uk> <MOFFAT.92Oct7105034@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl>
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:15:33 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <MOFFAT.92Oct7105034@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl>
moffat@uvapsy.psy.uva.nl (Dave Moffat) writes about rebuttals to
Penrose's book.

>Now finally here's what I originally meant to say.
>There's an extensive paper by Aaron Sloman in the latest AI journal
>doing exactly this -- refuting Penrose, point by point.

This paper is -- my opinion only, of course -- one of the worst
responses to Penrose that has been published.  It is rife with
technical inaccuracies (such as Sloman's belief that multiple
processors somehow avoid the Church-Turing hypothesis), and
essentially caves in to Penrose's attack on strong AI.  I found
it an embarrassment.

The issue of Behavior & Brain Sciences that contained an extensive
discussion of Penrose's book was much better.  Some of the responses
made sense, and some didn't -- but that was still a vast improvement
on Sloman's piece.

						Matt Ginsberg





