Has Penrose Disproved A.I.?

Abstract

Being read is not the same as being believed. Most reviewers have praised the book as original, well-written, thought-provoking, etc., and then gone on to take issue with one or more of Penrose's main theses. Penrose seems unfamiliar with the existing literature in cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and AI. The handful of reviewers who agree with Penrose don't seem to have paid much attention to his specific arguments - they always thought AI was bogus. See, for example, the 37 reviews in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), Dec. 1990, V13, pp.643-705

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 90,616

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

  • Only published works are available at libraries.

Similar books and articles

The Large, the Small and the Human Mind.Roger Penrose - 1997 - Cambridge University Press.
Penrose's new argument.Per Lindström - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
Yesterday’s Algorithm: Penrose and the Gödel Argument.William Seager - 2003 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
Mechanisms, microtubules, and the mind.Roger Penrose - 1994 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (2):241-49.
Mechanism, truth, and Penrose's new argument.Stewart Shapiro - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
Remarks on Penrose’s “New Argument”.Per Lindström - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
23 (#584,438)

6 months
1 (#1,040,386)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references