From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.bbn.com!papaya.bbn.com!cbarber Tue Nov 26 12:31:29 EST 1991
Article 1497 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!news.bbn.com!papaya.bbn.com!cbarber
>From: cbarber@bbn.com (Chris Barber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose
Message-ID: <3920@papaya.bbn.com>
Date: 22 Nov 91 15:46:37 GMT
References: <1991Nov16.014015.1074@yarra-glen.aaii.oz.au> <OZ.91Nov19130115@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> <1991Nov20.002510.5654@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Nov20.174026.6107@spss.com>
Organization: BBN Systems and Technology, Inc.
Lines: 21

In article <1991Nov20.174026.6107@spss.com> markrose@spss.com 
 (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:

>If Penrose had a devastating anti-AI argument, it would be nice if he had
>put it in _The Emperor's New Mind_ where people could evaluate it.
....
>He suspects that computers can't think because they don't exploit quantum
>effects, not because they aren't "conscious."

I got the sense when I read it, that his prime motivation for his
arguments was a desire to justify the concept of human free will. 
His argument, however, is rather weak, particulary when he talks about
the brain, one subject in which he is not expert.  I don't think there
is really any convincing evidence that neuron firing patterns are influenced
by quantum effects.  Even if they did, who is to say that one could not
build a computer that was also influenced in this fashion?


-- 
Christopher Barber
(cbarber@bbn.com)


