Abstract

The study examines Roger Penrose's arguments against strong AI and for non-algorithmic thinking as presented in his book, The Emperor's New Mind. The primary question addressed is whether or not to accept the computational hypothesis--that human thought is algorithmic. The study concludes that Penrose offers neither convincing logical proof nor sufficient scientific evidence to reject the hypothesis, but does present a comprehensive position that is very suggestive. It is then argued that this position combined with the criticisms voiced against pure skills critical thinking supports a morally and politically defensible case against the hypothesis. The study also shows that Penrose supplies conceptual tools and clearsighted views that advance the more-than-skills-alone approach to critical thinking in education. ;Penrose's work is the most recent turn in the AI debate. His arguments against strong AI, particularly his Godel argument, and his arguments for a non-algorithmic principle that is based on a "correct quantum gravity" and which principle is harnessed by the brain to create consciousness are closely summarized and analyzed. Nearly eighty reviews of his book are also examined as is his response to the commentaries in the December 1990 issue of the journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences. ;The study reveals the limitations of the Godel argument which is an expansion of the much criticized position introduced by the philosopher J. R. Lucas in 1961. The study also agrees with the critics that his argument that the brain harnesses a non-algorithmic, physical principle lacks satisfactory scientific evidence. Penrose's position, however, does offer an intelligent and imaginative alternative viewpoint. ;Coupled with the ideas of those against pure skills CT, Penrose's arguments suggest that the human mind/brain cannot be a computer because the digital computer is inherently limited. It is argued that thinking is part of the human moral and political order that has content and matter , processes and purposes that transcend programs. Penrose's work provides valuable observations and insights that reinforce the arguments against the computational view that all thinking is reducible to procedures or skills