Re: Robot Evolution



"Phil Roberts, Jr." philrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-


My impression is that the only folk who reject the fundamentals
of the brain-computer analogy are people like Roger Penrose
and John Searle - i.e. those whose world view in the area is
totally muddled.

Tim Tyler wrote:
Well I would agree that Penrose is totally muddled on this

I have always thought the Godel argument constitutes a pretty
good ARGUMENT against a computational view of the mind.

JE:-
Gödel proved that mathematical tautologies remained mindless. IOW, mind is
not based on just an abstract version of reversible logic or deduction, it
remains based on the mystery of INDUCTION. Win a Nobel prize by detailing
the process of induction to sbe readers.


Where
I think Lucas went wrong was in his claim that Godel constitutes
a PROOF against computationalism. You can't prove empirical
assertions, you can only marshall evidence. That's why all
scientific theories are tentatively true until the next
revision.

JE:-
"Until the next revision"? What are the criteria for this supposed
"revision"?

How many ways are there of evading Popper's inevitable requirement for
refutation?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx











I can't recall to what
extent Penrose claimed Godel as a proof rather than an argument
against computationalism. But as an argument, I am definitely
in the Lucas/Penrose camp. Can you provide a brief overview of
why you consider Penrose "totally muddled" on this issue?

PR


.

Loading