prohaska%lapis@Sun.COM (J.R. Prohaska) (11/09/89)
I read a review of this book in The Economist recently, and it sounded fairly
interesting. It's written by Roger Penrose, who apparently is a tad skeptical
about artificial intelligence. Has anyone read the book? Anyone inclined to
write a book review for us?
J.R. Prohaska
Sun Microsystems, Mountain View, California (415) 336 2502
internet: prohaska@sun.com
usenet: {backbone}!sun!prohaska
USnail: Box 9022, Stanford, CA 94305
J.R.
Knowledge Systems Group, MS 12-33, x6-2502kumard@cs.Buffalo.EDU (Deepak Kumar) (12/06/89)
The Book Reviews section of Sunday New York Times a couple weeks ago also had a review of Posner's book. Deepak. kumard@cs.buffalo.EDU kumard@sunybcs.BITNET kumard@sunybcs.UUCP Deepak Kumar, Dept. of CS, 226 Bell Hall, SUNY@Buffalo, NY 14260.
wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin) (12/13/89)
Roger Penrose's book THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND (Oxford UP 1989) was reviewed by
the philosopher Daniel Dennett (he of THE MIND'S I) in the Times Literary
Supplement at the end of September. I'll quote a bit:
The idea that a computer could be conscious -- or equivalently,
that human consciousness is the effect of some complex computation
mechanically performed by our brains -- strikes some scientists
and philosophers as beautiful. They find it initially surprising
and unsettling, as all beautiful ideas are, but the inevitable
culmination of the scientific advances that have gradually
demystified and unified the material world. The ideologues of
artificial intelligence (AI) have been its most articulate
supporters. To others, this idea is deeply repellent:
philistine, reductionistic (in some bad sense), as incredible as
it is offensive. John Searle's attack on "strong AI" is the best-
known expression of this view, but others in the same camp would
dearly love to see a principled, scientific argument showing that
strong AI is impossible. Roger Penrose has set out to provide
just such an argument.
It is a huge project. In order to build his case, Professor
Penrose must lead his reader through detailed discussions of many
topics.... Many of these topics have been given excellent popular
presentations in recent years -- in Hofstadter's Goedel Escher
Bach (1979), Hawking's A Brief History of Time (1989), Gleick's
Chaos: Making a New Science (1987) -- but Penrose believes that he
must go over this material again in his own way, digging deeper,
explaining in more detail. The result is bracing reading, to say
the least, and the topics for hundreds of pages apparently have
nothing to do with the mind at all.
The inevitable first impression, then, is that the book is
the ultimate academic shaggy-dog story, a tale whose fascinating
digressions outweigh the punch-line by a large factor.....
What minds can do, Penrose claims, is to see or judge that
certain mathematical propositions are true by "insight" rather
than mechanical proof. And Penrose then goes on to some length to
argue that there could be no algorithm, or at any rate no
practical algorithm [like a computer's performance], for insight.
In the meantime I would say that whether or not the Penrose
revolution in physics is coming, he has not yet shown the need for
the revolution in order to explain facts of human cognitive
competence.
It's quite a long and refreshing book review (headlined " Murmurs in the
Cathedral" for some reason), if you can find the TLS for 29 September 1989.mike@cs.arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) (12/19/89)
From article <14975@well.UUCP>, by wcalvin@well.UUCP (William Calvin): > > > > Roger Penrose's book THE EMPEROR'S NEW MIND (Oxford UP 1989) was reviewed by > the philosopher Daniel Dennett [...] > ... The inevitable first impression, then, is that the book is > the ultimate academic shaggy-dog story, a tale whose fascinating > digressions outweigh the punch-line by a large factor..... This is true, but the digressions are worth the price of the book. Penrose covers an *amazing* amoung of ground in this book; almost all of it is fascinating. I agree with the reviewer that the punch line is weak, but don't let that deter you from reading it. -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858