[spot]

yup and his book was reviewed as such at the time. mention of the rejection of his theory by professional philosophers however keeps getting edited out of the wikipedia page. See this exchange on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Emperor%27s_New_Mind

>> "The book's thesis is considered erroneous by experts in the fields of philosophy, computer science, and robotics."

> Wooooah, there. That's a massive accusation to add, unsourced, and without any discussion. There needs to be a source for this statement, not to mention an opposing view. It seems unlikely the guy would win an award for a book no one thinks is right. I'm deleting it unless someone comes up with a pretty good source. Joker1189 (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source was provided with the edit: L.J.Landau (1997) "Penrose's Philosophical Error" ISBN 3-540-76163-2 http://www.mth.kcl.ac.uk/~llandau/Homepage/Math/penrose.html Spot (talk) 03:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

[sarchertech]

You say keeps getting edited out but I see one instance of that happening 15 years ago.

The talk is unavailable, but that and a chapter in Landau’s book hardly seem like appropriate sources for “everyone disagrees with him”.

The vast majority of critiques of his argument that I’ve read are by people who are actively working in AI not professional logicians.

[spot]

who said "everyone" or did you make a strawman?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Lucas_argument

this actually puts it better:

The Penrose–Lucas argument about the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorem for computational theories of human intelligence was criticized by mathematicians,[16][17][18][19] computer scientists,[20] and philosophers,[21][22][23][24][25] and the consensus among experts[7] in these fields is that the argument fails,[26][27][28] with different authors attacking different aspects of the argument.[28][29]

so, rejected by consensus. someone should update the book page so this expert rejection is clearer.

[sarchertech]

Everyone is obvious hyperbole because I didn’t want to both copying and pasting the actual quote.

That is merely a compiled list of people who disagree with him without listing any of his supporters.

There are at least 5 philosophers who support his position if you follow those links and 5 who reject it.

Link 7 doesn’t support the statement “consensus among experts in these fields” because it only refers to a single field—philosophy.

Many of those sources are just links to lists that other people have compiled of arguments for and against Lucas’ argument. They aren’t even all critiques. And many of the ones that are, are already linked directly in the article.

There’s is nothing more to support the notion that there is widespread consensus against his argument.

There may be. But this isn’t good evidence of it.

[btilly]

I can't speak to the general opinion among philosophers about his argument. But my opinion about philosophy is such that their opinion would not sway mine in either way.

I can speak to the general opinion of his logical arguments among logicians. And it is not just widespread consensus against. It is a widespread consensus that the argument is filled with basic logic errors that render it absolutely wrong.

As Hilary Putnam points out, Penrose's arguments are even worse than Lucas'. In particularly Penrose argues that no program that we can know to be sound, can simulate all our human mathematical competence. But our brains do not use a sound thinking process. Therefore a sufficiently good simulation of our brains that it can do mathematics, would also not be sound. Gödel's theorem is entirely silent on the potential capabilities of such unsound systems.

Furthermore LLMs provide a convincing demonstration that unsound simulations of us can have surprising levels of competence. ChatGPT regularly demonstrates both its competence and unsoundness. Sometimes at the same time!

The potential for unsound systems to demonstrate competence far beyond what most expected, is demonstrated by LLMs. Admittedly the current error rate is unacceptably high. But it demonstrates that what Penrose claimed to be mathematically impossible, may plausibly become real within our lifetimes. (Though, given how old Penrose is, not his.)

[sarchertech]

I replied to your other post. His proof is much subtler than that and if it has flaws that isn’t it.

https://calculemus.org/MathUniversalis/NS/10/01penrose.html

[btilly]

I replied to you there.

But in section 4.5 of this "rebuttal", he admits to the flaw that I just pointed out, and dismisses it as logically possible but absurd. The fact that he grants that it is logically possible, demonstrates that his attempted logical demonstration is broken.

Also his opinion on absurdity has to be weighed against the unlikeliness of his conclusion that the known laws of physics will not suffice to explain the operation of the brain. Clearly that question is not as cut and dried as he believes.

[btilly]

I am amused that my unintended repetition in the last two paragraphs demonstrates how unsound my absolutely human brain is.

(Unless I'm an LLM. I'm certainly unfunny enough to be one.)