[Wittrs] Re: On the Mechanism of Understanding
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:57:42 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kirby urner <kirby.urner@...> wrote:
> The way Penrose pictures it is more like making a conceptual leap,
> connecting two or more dots in some inscrutable way that we could
> never hope to "program" (as in "write an algorithm to do"), but then
> sometimes, once the dots are connected, we go back and prove the
> connections by rational steps.
Penrose has a strong intuition that AI could not possibly work. And our
ability to make conceptual leaps is perhaps part of what has resulted
in that intuition.
Penrose's argument is nonsense. However, that does not mean that his
intuition is wrong. His intuition might be correct, even though his
argument is silly.
Similarly, Searle seems to have a strong intuition that AI could not
possibly work, and part of his intuition seems to be due to his
insights into the importance of meaning (intentionality, or
"understanding" as Searle calls it in his argument). Searle's argument
is silly. However, Searle's intuition might be correct even though his
argument fails to prove it.
What bothers me about both of these cases, is that we have a
mathematician and a philosopher producing bogus arguments to support
their intuitive views. Penrose and Searle are both pretty bright
people. They ought to have known that their arguments do not prove
what they claim they prove.
Regards,
Neil
Other related posts:
