Lines: 39
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Message-ID: <wzad3MD38Balz7@ssc.online.fire.dbn.dinet.com>
From: SSC@ONLINE.FIRE.DBN.DINET.COM (Soenke Senff)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!fas-news.harvard.edu!newspump.wustl.edu!news.ecn.bgu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news.maz.net!news.shlink.de!genepi.shnet.org!news2.shlink.de!filelink.shnet.org!dbs.dbn.dinet.com!online.fire.dbn.dinet.com!SSC
Organization: NetWork2001
Subject: Re: Expert Systems, AI and Philosophy
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 15:01:59 +0100
X-Mailer: MicroDot 1.8 [REGISTERED 00038b]
References: <4aaohd$vv8@fox.iprolink.ch>
X-Gateway: ZCONNECT US genepi.shnet.org [UNIX/Connect v0.71]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:35298 comp.ai.philosophy:35758

Reply to meredith@iprolink.ch (David Meredith)`s message
"Re: Expert Systems, AI and Philosophy":

DM> Roger Penrose claims to have *proved* that there are certain 
DM> mathematical problems that humans *have* solved that could not, even
DM> in principle, be solved algorithmically.
DM> 
DM> See:
DM> Penrose, R.; 
DM> 1994; 
DM> Shadows of the Mind;
DM> Oxford University Press;
DM> ISBN: 0 19 853978 9.
DM> 
DM> At the beginning of Chapter 2 of this book, he writes:
DM> 
DM> "It is in mathematics that our thinking processes have their
DM> purest form. If thinking is just carrying out a computation of 
DM> some kind, then it might seem that we ought to be able to see 
DM> this most clearly in our mathematical thinking. Yet, remarkably,
DM> the very reverse turns out to be the case. It is within mathematics
DM> that we find the clearest evidence that there must actually be
DM> something in our conscious thought processes that eludes 
DM> computation"(p.64).
DM> 
DM> He then goes on to demonstrate this.
DM> 
DM> The case that he makes in this book is considerably stronger and
DM> more developed than in his "Emperor's New Mind".

I am just reading this book, and although I am basically willing to
accept Penrose's reasoning, I am not quite sure that it is okay in this
case just to argue against one-argument-machines, for surely the brain
gets a lot more information to solve this problem.

---

Best wishes,
              Snke Senff (SSC@ONLINE.FIRE.DBN.DINET.COM)
