Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!lerc.nasa.gov!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBpFnC.2oJ@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3tu4n1$b5d@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie> <jqbDBKEK9.E9F@netcom.com> <3u207h$t4s@bell.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 11:52:23 GMT
Lines: 45
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12362 comp.ai.philosophy:30142

In article <3u207h$t4s@bell.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.  
>
>I have the book beside me now, and I see absolutely nothing in the Preface
>to suggest that Penrose aimed to "doom the AI effort".
>In fact he does not mention AI at all in the Preface.
>I sometimes wonder if you are reading the same book as me.

You might question whether Euclid proved that 47 is not the greatest prime,
since his proof doesn't even *mention* that number.

Since you seem incapable of extracting the meaning from the preface,
I will refer you to chapter 8, one of several places where Penrose speaks more
directly to the issue:

"The argument of Part I strongly made the case that the technology of
electronic computer-controlled robots will *not* provide a way to the
artificial [A -- got it, Tim?] construction of of an *actually* intelligent [I
-- got it, Tim?] machine--in the sense of a machine that understands what it
is doing and can act upon that understanding."

That doesn't sound much like "to show that humans (and other animals) differ
from robots."  (Can you give me a page number, dear Tim, where Penrose states
that as "the aim of the exercise"?  If not, shall I take that as evidence that
you don't actually own a copy of the book, as you would do with me, dear
hypocritical Tim?).  We are reading the same book; the question is, what are
we each doing with the words that we've read?

Ah, but it's a really good book, everyone should go out and read it.
(Have you read _The Society of Mind_ lately, oh well-read Tim?)
-- 
<J Q B>

