Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,sci.psychology,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.bio,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books,
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Roger Penrose's New Book (in HTML) 1.0
Message-ID: <CzqI45.20x@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: <39vac3$ba6@news.halcyon.com> <CzFsw2.A4o@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbCzHz5r.59o@netcom.com>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 1994 19:00:04 GMT
Lines: 43
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.physics:101359 sci.skeptic:96213 sci.psychology:30259 comp.ai.philosophy:22525 sci.bio:23315 sci.philosophy.meta:14974

In article <jqbCzHz5r.59o@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <CzFsw2.A4o@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
>Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>In article <39vac3$ba6@news.halcyon.com> jennings@chinook.halcyon.com (James Jennings) writes:
>>>Forgive me for coming in late and for not having read Penrose's new
>>>book. (I haven't yet deduced it's title from this thread.) I read
>>>Penrose's "Emperor's New Mind" and have a comment on that.
>>>
>>>Penrose wants to show that the human mind is not merely a computer. He
>>>tries to do this by exploring the theoretical limits of computation, the
>>>known limits of the human mind, and alternate models of computational
>>>processes.
>>>
>>>What it comes down to is this (in my opinion of course). Suppose there
>>>is a problem A and a proved theorem that says:
>>>"There is no algorithm that can solve A in finite time."
>>>And suppose real people solve examples of A all the time. Penrose would
>>>conclude that people do not think using algorithms. There must be
>>>something "magic" about human thought.
>>
>>How do you get from not using algorithms to magic?
>
>Is there some problem with your display system or communications software,
>that it omits quote marks?  He said "<quote>magic<quote>", not "magic". 

True.  So what?

Do you do nothing but look for details of presentation to exploit?

> In
>context, "magic" obviously (there's that word again) means "non-algorithmic",
>be it QM microtubules or meatiness or soulfulness or whatever.

Let's try a replacement then:

  And suppose real people solve examples of A all the time. Penrose would
  conclude that people do not think using algorithms. There must be
  something "non-algorithmic" about human thought.

Why not say that instead of talking about "magic", if that's all that's
really meant?

-- jd
