From: Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat Oct 09 2004 - 05:32:38 MDT
The two arguments are essentially equivalent; in fact neither one is the
exact way Penrose worded things in his book...
When I spoke to Penrose about this in person, some years ago, he certainly
had no issues with my minor reformulation of his argument.
> Ben wrote:
> > Premise 1) FOR EACH computer, THERE EXISTS some problem which
> that computer
> > can't solve
> > Premise 2) NOT [ FOR EACH human, THERE EXISTS some problem
> which that human
> > can't solve ]
> > Conclusion) Therefore, humans are not computers
> > The problem is that his premise 2 is false
> No, these are not his arguments. They go by:
> 1) Assume that you are a TM.
> 2) Then here is a specific input I, on which you must fail.
> 3) Hey, but you can clearly produce the correct output
> on I! => Contradiction!
> Premise 2 never entered the picture.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:49 MDT