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.sprintlink.net!demon!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!dcs.ed.ac.uk!cnews
From: Alan Smaill <smaill@dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
In-Reply-To: jqb@netcom.com's message of Sun, 9 Jul 1995 08:59:06 GMT
Message-ID: <SMAILL.95Jul10102731@papa.dcs.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: cnews@dcs.ed.ac.uk (UseNet News Admin)
Organization: University of Edinburgh
References: <3t0u49$p32@netnews.upenn.edu> <3ti16e$ka8@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
	<DBD1Kp.21A@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3tksqh$8q3@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
	<jqbDBFyAI.9xD@netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 09:27:31 GMT
Lines: 25
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29829 sci.logic:12087


In article <jqbDBFyAI.9xD@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:

jqb> And again, you are very confusing when you write about Turing
jqb> Machines as a class, or even UTMs, as having some characteristic.
jqb> The questions is whether *some* robot, built upon computation,
jqb> could have consciousness or could have 'understanding'.  It is to
jqb> *that* question that Penrose says "no".  If you think the issue
jqb> is whether bicycles or PC clones are conscious, then you are way
jqb> out of your depth.

It could help the discussion if you would tell us what (if anything)
the phrase "built upon computation" adds to your characterisation
above.  For example, you might mean that the robot's behaviour should
be explicable as an instance of some abstract model of computation --
is that what you mean?  




-- 
Alan Smaill                       email: A.Smaill@ed.ac.uk
LFCS, Dept. of Computer Science   tel: 44-31-650-2710
University of Edinburgh           
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK.            
