Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 21:05:45 08/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
<snip> >There are no such "proofs". There _are_ lots of opinions and claims, but >that is a long way from a "proof". To date nobody has proven that the mind >can do any more (or any less) than a finite-state machine... > >The computer may (or may not) do some things the same way as the mind. But >the end results may well be identical. Your gifts, education and experience in this field are superior to mine in every respect. If you've read the book and found it completely wanting, then I stand corrected (and Dr. Penrose stands as a woefully impaired mathemetician). You are the professor. Regards, Matt > > > > >>Anyway, that was my understanding of his argument. I've yet to see anybody >>challenge his central thesis in any serious manner. One suspects there's alot >>of intellectual capital invested in Strong AI for which this kind of news is not >>welcome. > >You can't prove that which you don't understand, which means this issue >of how the mind works and is it better or worse than the computer is an >open question. And it will remain open for a _long_ time... > > >> >>BTW, chess, as we all know, _is_ a class of problem that _can_ be solved >>algorithmically. A fact for which I'm sure we can all agree is quite >>delightful.:-) >> >>Best regards, >>Matt >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Regards, >>>>Matt
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.