Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news4.ner.bbnplanet.net!news3.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!library.ucla.edu!csulb.edu!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
Message-ID: <jqbDBFnxn.IBK@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t0u49$p32@netnews.upenn.edu> <3tf53k$tj@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <jqbDBD5M0.3Fp@netcom.com> <3tm7i8$gqr@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Sun, 9 Jul 1995 05:15:23 GMT
Lines: 85
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29767 sci.logic:12036

In article <3tm7i8$gqr@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>>My assertion was -- to spell it out in simple terms --
>>>that the onus is on anyone who claims
>>>that the human brain is a Turing machine
>>>to justify that claim.
>
>>And who claims that?  A TM is a formalism.  I don't think of myself as
>>a formalism.  Turing machines process infinite tapes.  I've never seen
>>an infinite tape, myself.
>
>I've no idea what you believe; I have no pretensions to mind-reading.

Huh?  Who was talking about reading my mind?  Other than you, in making
innuendo as to what people are claiming.  I did just tell you something
I don't think, so that you need not read my mind about it.
I really don't think you are making much sense here.

>I think it will be much simpler if we stick to Penrose' 4 categories (a)-(d).
>I was referring here to category (a).

Why don't you just refer to what you are referring to directly in the first
place, instead of wandering off into absurdities such as "humans are just
bicycles"?

>I suspect you belong in category (b) ("Shadows of the Mind", p12).
>It is a great pity that you, like so many others in this thread,
>cannot tie your comments on Penrose' book to specific references.

There you go reading my mind again.  I don't fit into any of Penrose's
categories, because my stance is driven by the sum of my inputs at any
given moment, not some dogma.

Since I was addressing *your* statement, and you made no specific reference
to Penrose until just now, it's a bit rude for you to express your "pity".

>>The claim made is that humans can do things that no robot with TM-equivalent
>>computational powers can ever do.  That's the claim that needs justifying.
>>It is my *position* is that there is no basis for the claim.  My position
>>is justified by the lack of evidence for the claim, as well as the obviously
>>computable nature of the sum of human output.
>
>I can think of lots of things I can do which no robot can do,
>eg enjoy listening to "Blood on the Tracks".

The question isn't what a robot *can* do, it's what it *could* do.
You are simply begging the question.  Any child could see that.
Do you claim that no robot could enjoy listening to "Blood on the Tracks"?
If so, the onus is on you to justify the claim (remember, that's the point
here).  No one has claimed that any robot ever will do so.  It is you
who are making the claims.  So get off your hypocritical high horse
and justify your claims.

>>Yes, it is perfectly clear that your understanding of the issues is so weak
>>that you would think that the positions held here are of the nature of
>>"humans are just bicycles".
>
>Why do you think you are incapable of conducting a rational argument
>within the limits of common courtesy?

There you go reading my mind again, you silly twit.  I do think myself
capable of that.  It just isn't my desire to sink down to your level
of feigned courtesy.  Your postings are full of veiled hostility, and 
and I am not interested in you setting the rules of the game.

>Are you perhaps a robot which has been programmed to enter abusive mode
>when the argument gets a little too intricate for it?

What do you honestly think?  Are you going to become a Wiener-style liar?
Unlike Wiener, whom you seem unable or unwilling to criticize,
I sprinkle rational and substantive responses among my barbs.  Are they
too intricate for you to respond to without making this into an idiotic
metadiscussion about who is more polite?  Do you think that politeness
makes an argument more valid?  If you hadn't been so rude and hostile
as to complain about people's courtesy level in the first place,
I never would have responded to you as I did.  I ask you again, can't
you imagine any apparent discourtesy as being a response to something
read?  Are you incapable of empathy?  (Matthew answered for you in
his own inimical way; why don't you take a shot at it?)

-- 
<J Q B>

