Re: Penrose vs the Robot


"Rupert" <rupertmccallum@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1133319555.760113.211980@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> But the whole point is Penrose thinks he can know he's not the program
> p. And if the robot has the same sort of epistemological relationship
> to reality as us, the robot can also know it's not the program p, but
> that's a contradiction. Penrose concludes the robot can't have the same
> sort of epistemological relationship to reality as us.
>> --

But the whole point is that Penrose fails to show how he can
know he is not the program p. He fails to prove this premise.

Most people would agree that if Penrose stated he is smarter
than a robot because he is a human, then it would follow he
can do thinking that the robot can't. That would be circular.

Penrose never gets past the bald assertion that he is smarter
than a machine. He never established this point of why his
premise should be considered true. He doesn't provide an
example which establishes a human mathematician has aha
experiences beyond the ken of a mere mechanical procedure.
Remember people used to think chess was human only mastery.

Do Androids dream of electrick sheep,
Stephen


.

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: Penrose vs the Robot
    ... Stephen Harris wrote: ... And if the robot has the same sort of epistemological relationship ... Penrose concludes the robot can't have the same ... > Penrose never gets past the bald assertion that he is smarter ...
    (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)