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!panix!news1.panix.com!news.cloud9.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Putnam reviews Penrose.
Message-ID: <jqbDBq4Au.EC5@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ss4sm$cjd@mp.cs.niu.edu> <3u207h$t4s@bell.maths.tcd.ie> <jqbDBpFnC.2oJ@netcom.com> <3u6gnl$d3f@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 14 Jul 1995 20:44:54 GMT
Lines: 56
Sender: jqb@netcom7.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.logic:12426 comp.ai.philosophy:30214

In article <3u6gnl$d3f@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie>,
Timothy Murphy <tim@maths.tcd.ie> wrote:
>jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>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:
>
>I'd prefer you to give a reference to the Preface,
>which is where _you_ claimed Penrose had said his aim was to "doom AI".

I claimed no such thing, and I'd prefer it if you quote me where I said
``Penrose had said his aim was to "doom AI".''  Of course, since you refuse to
document *your* claims that "The aim of the exercise is ... to show that
humans (and other animals) differ from robots" and "his main aim was to
publicise his rather weird views on micro-tubules", I won't hold my breath.
Meanwhile, I think I have adequately justified my claim that you are a
hypocrit.

In any case, it does take an act that perhaps only human minds are capable of
to get from "I argue strongly against the commonly held viewpoint that our
conscious--mentality--in all of its manifestations--could, in principle, be
fully understood in terms of computational models" in the preface and
"According to A, there will come a stage when appropriately programmed
supercomputers will reach--and then race beyond--all human mental
capabilities" in 1.10 to what Penrose thinks the effects of his efforts are on
the latter program.

>>"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."  
>
>Actually the 2 statements do sound reasonably close to me,

That gives us some measure of your reasoning faculties.

>especially as I never claimed there was any resemblance between them at all.

So I take it that the claim that "The aim of the exercise is ... to show that
humans (and other animals) differ from robots" is distinct from a claim that
there is any resemblance between that and anything Penrose has ever said.

Why, Tim, other than hypocrisy, did you excise my request that you document
your claim that "The aim of the exercise is ... to show that humans (and other
animals) differ from robots" and failed to to do so?  Am I to take it that you
don't have a copy of the book, as you claimed you would take a failure on my
part to quote from it?  Are you a hypocrit or are you not?
Is hypocrisy some form of courtesy?
-- 
<J Q B>

