Re: Penrose vs the Robot


Daryl McCullough wrote:
> Rupert Mccallum and Stephen Harris have been posting recently
> about Penrose' old argument that he is not a robot (or rather,
> he has mathematical abilities above and beyond those of any
> Turing machine program). I actually think now that Penrose'
> argument falls apart on the very first step. (This counterargument
> didn't occur to me when I initially debated with Penrose about
> it.)
>
> Penrose' argument simplified is this: Assume that there
> is some robot with a Turing machine brain that is equivalent to
> Penrose' human brain. Then Penrose can come up with a mathematical
> statement S such that Penrose can be unassailably certain of the
> truth of S, but the robot cannot.
>
What about concepts? What about measurement omission? You seem to be
convinced that something is either propositional/mathematical logic or
it is not logic at all.

Any robot constructed by humans can be analyzed, whether using
stringent logic or more flexible logic, and then its general nature
will be known.

Furthermore, I argue that robots do not learn, but humans do. A robot
cannot reprogram itself in the way a human can.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Penrose vs the Robot
    ... > p is a simulation of Penrose. ... > on *how* the robot came to find out that it is p. ... > Human beings do not work by deduction from axioms, ... "Human beings do not work by deduction from axioms" ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Penrose vs the Robot
    ... I actually think now that Penrose' ... is some robot with a Turing machine brain that is equivalent to ... current state is a computable function of its past inputs. ... of determining what "unassailable beliefs" are implied ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Penroses reply to Chalmers
    ... >being unassailably true to it being unassailably true. ... >work for the robot. ... >I think what you need to be disputing is that Penrose really does know ... Show that leads to a contradiction via ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Penrose vs the Robot
    ... p is a simulation of Penrose. ... on *how* the robot came to find out that it is p. ... >> It's just a mistake on the part of the robot. ... "I am p" to this formal theory. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Penroses reply to Chalmers
    ... >> Penrose makes the bold assumption that his reasoning powers ... > Do you believe that Penrose' argument carries any weight? ... > A robot could make exactly the same argument. ... This is not to say I agree with any assertions about the human mind ...
    (sci.logic)