Re: Penrose vs the Robot


Daryl McCullough wrote:
> abo says...
>
> >You now seem to be limiting human behavior to one single type -
> >recognizing mathematical truth. Is this intended?
>
> That's the context of Penrose' argument. He was specifically
> addressing the question of whether humans have some mathematical
> ability that is beyond that of any computer program.
>
> --

Should I take that as a "yes"? You made an argument (1., 2., and 3.)
about the human being as an input/output system. It refers to our
muscles and so on. I don't see why it doesn't apply to all human
behaviours, as you claimed in your prefacing remarks, rather than just
recognizing mathematical truth.

To be blunt, this kind of argument is often used to justify the view
that human beings are just finite automata, and it seems to be clearly
invalid. I'm not claiming that your conclusions about Penrose's
argument is wrong - I'm in broad sympathy - but I don't find your 1.,
2., and 3. as providing anything in support for your claims.

.