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
|
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) |
| Categories | (categorize this paper) |
| Options |
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Request removal from index
|
Download options
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
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 index
2009-01-28
Total views
23 ( #492,407 of 2,504,848 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,030 of 2,504,848 )
2009-01-28
Total views
23 ( #492,407 of 2,504,848 )
Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #417,030 of 2,504,848 )
How can I increase my downloads?
Downloads
