Further reading matter.

[zotz]

Yesterday there was a Guardian article about the philosopher (and sculptor, and jazz pianist, and sailor, and cidermaker . . .) Dan Dennett, who it turns out is a man too talented to be allowed to live. I have recommended his work to some of you before - especially Consciousness Explained and Darwin's dangerous Idea.

Comments

[steer.livejournal.com]

His falling for Searle's emotionally-laden nonsense, on the other hand, is just embarrassing in one so bright.

Finally got into the office so I can check my copy. Searle's arguments are mentioned on only three pages according to the index. Penrose says of them "I think that Searle's argument has considerable force to it even if it is not altogether conclusive... it _suggests_ [his italics] (but no more) that no algorithm, no matter how complicated, can ever, of itself alone, embody genuine understanding..." [p26 in my paperback copy of ENM.]

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

His coverage of Lucas's argument is also suprisingly short. Searle's argument doesn't deserve three lines, let alone three pages - it's an entirely insubstantial plea to the emotions. I'm sorry that Penrose sees fit to credit it with "considerable force".

I agree that due to its unfortunate popularity it has to appear in any textbook on philosophy of AI, but ENM is not a textbook and need not include irrelevant arguments in favour of his position.

[steer.livejournal.com]

Searle's argument doesn't deserve three lines, let alone three pages

Either way, Hofstatder in GEB and Dennett in consciousness explained give it about that as well.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Yes, they have to because it's a popular argument against their position. Penrose doesn't have to because it supports his position - and he certainly doesn't have to grant it "considerable force".

I'm very glad that the former two give it the attention they do - their demolition job is very thorough.