Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!caen!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBKEK9.E9F@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <BILL.95Jul10111232@pfc.nsma.arizona.edu> <jqbDBIt1o.K1t@netcom.com> <3tu4n1$b5d@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 1995 18:40:57 GMT
Lines: 19
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12202 comp.ai.philosophy:29954

In article <3tu4n1$b5d@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>If the only true sentences that
>>an AI cannot see the truth of are the results of such Goedelization, this
>>hardly dooms the AI effort, since we don't expect these to be interesting
>>propositions in their own right.  
>
>The aim of the exercise is not to "doom the AI effort"
>but to show that humans (and other animals) differ from robots.

I guess you haven't read ShOTM, esp. the preface, in which Penrose describes
his aim.  It hardly takes Penrose to show that humans, who are born, carbon
based, etc., differ from robots, at least as currently envisioned.

-- 
<J Q B>

