Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!apple!usc!jarthur!ucivax!ucla-cs!oahu.cs.ucla.edu!martin
From: martin@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (david l. martin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: Penrose Penrose Penrose Penrose Penrose...
Keywords: neural networks, AI
Message-ID: <37142@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 20 Jul 90 04:15:17 GMT
References: <6663@helios.TAMU.EDU> <12788@sun.udel.edu>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Distribution: comp.sys.neural-nets
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 39

In article <12788@sun.udel.edu> cocteau@sun.udel.edu (Daniel J Pirone) writes:
>Unfortunatly, I am of the school of thought that says, strengthen yourself,
>by knowing your enemy ( ie. I read perceptrons ... ;-)).
>So I bought, the Emporers New Mind, but like eveyone else in
>the Connectionist community, I have way to much to read....
>So , ( on to  the point ) I read the 1 page review in a recent (?) TIME
>...
>
>This type of stuff is a double edge blade - nice fantacy reading,
>BUT REALLY BAD PR for our community....
>Lynch him.

	Oh come on, guys, what do you think this is, a football game, or a
scientific dialog?

	I don't know anything about Penrose' personality, or what unspoken 
motives he might have.  But I _have_ read his book, and I failed to detect 
any malice on his part towards the AI community.  What I did detect, IMHO, 
was a thoughtful appraisal of some intriguing and important and timely 
questions, which by the way have occurred to a number of us already, who wished 
that we had the background in physics needed to answer them.  Penrose has 
bothered to acquire the relevant background from a number of fields in addition 
to physics, in order to address these questions, and again IMHO, has done a 
very nice job of presenting the relevant concerns from each of these.

	Now, I agree with most that Penrose' conjectures don't seem all that
plausible.  Maybe this book ought to be considered the work of a brilliant
man who's going through a starry-eyed phase.  I don't know.  But if one
gives the book a fair reading, I think one will find that he's laid out
the issues in a clear and scientific manner.  Yes, there is a lot of speculation
in the book.  But where it occurs it is clearly identified as such.  Moreover,
the man has gone to great lengths to show how and why he believes these
conjectures are related to the body of scientific knowledge.  At the very 
least, he's performed a great service by defining the territory in which any 
further consideration of these questions can take place (or any refutation of 
his conjectures).

Dave Martin
UCLA