From: "Phil Roberts, Jr."
Newsgroups: sci.bio.evolution Subject: Re: Robot Evolution Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 02:08:01 -0500 (EST) Inman Harvey wrote: > > Tim Tyler wrote: >>My impression is that the only folk who reject the fundamentals >>of the brain-computer analogy are people like Roger Penrose >>and John Searle - i.e. those whose world view in the area is >>totally muddled. >> > > Well I would agree that Penrose is totally muddled on this I have always thought the Godel argument constitutes a pretty good ARGUMENT against a computational view of the mind. Where I think Lucas went wrong was in his claim that Godel constitutes a PROOF against computationalism. You can't prove empirical assertions, you can only marshall evidence. That's why all scientific theories are tentatively true until the next revision. I can't recall to what extent Penrose claimed Godel as a proof rather than an argument against computationalism. But as an argument, I am definitely in the Lucas/Penrose camp. Can you provide a brief overview of why you consider Penrose "totally muddled" on this issue? PR