Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.logic
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Lucas & Penrose's use of Godel
Message-ID: <jqbDBIHsA.L8s@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3t0u49$p32@netnews.upenn.edu> <3tm7i8$gqr@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <jqbDBFnxn.IBK@netcom.com> <3tolma$76s@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 1995 17:55:21 GMT
Lines: 70
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:29868 sci.logic:12124

In article <3tolma$76s@bell.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>I wonder if you have looked at categories (a)-(d) [p12] lately?
>It is quite difficult not to fit into one of them.

I find it trivial.  I fit into Penrose's categories in the same sense that I
have not yet stopped beating my wife.  "Evocation of awareness" is not a
matter of fact, it is a matter of interpretation.  It is unknowable whether
"feelings of conscious awareness" are invoked in other humans, let alone as a
result of an abstract computation process.  The question is whether thinking
is formally modelable by computation.  I suspect, but do not know, that all
aspects of the human organism are formally modelable by computation.  Unlike
Penrose, who makes a claim and thinks he has an unassailable demonstration of
it.  So this sort of puts me into "suspects A", except that I find statements
like "thinking is computation" to involve category errors.  "thinking" and
"computation" are distinct concepts with distinct connotations.  This has
little to do with whether the actual processes that go on within the human
brain are computable.

>>>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"?
>
>Yes, I would claim that.
>I believe that computers (and robots) 
>have in effect reached the end of their development.
>Of course they will grow faster, smaller, have more memory, etc.
>But in my belief they will not be used in ways radically different
>from the ways they are used today.
>In fact I would go so far as to say that the future of computers
>was already foreseen by Turing.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with the word *could*.  They all
have to do with the word *will*.  Penrose is concerned with *could*, *in
principle*.

>However, my personal beliefs are not the issue here;

Your claims are at issue; you spoke of "which no robot can do",
then gave a list of things you think they *won't* do.

>I take it we are concerned basically with Penrose' book, 
>"Shadows of the Mind" (which everyone should read).

That seems to be your standard ploy for avoiding substantive discussion.  Yes,
let's all go read the book, and stop all this silly discussion about the
subjects it covers.

BTW, have you read _The Society of Mind_ lately?

>>Do you think that politeness
>>makes an argument more valid?  
>
>Yes

Hmmm ... this belief of yours in the validity of ad hominem modes may explain
a lot.

-- 
<J Q B>

