David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Being read is not the same as being believed. Most reviewers have praised the book as original, well-written, thought-provoking, etc., and then gone on to take issue with one or more of Penrose's main theses. Penrose seems unfamiliar with the existing literature in cognitive science, philosophy of mind, and AI. The handful of reviewers who agree with Penrose don't seem to have paid much attention to his specific arguments - they always thought AI was bogus. See, for example, the 37 reviews in Behavioral and Brain Sciences (BBS), Dec. 1990, V13, pp.643-705
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Roger Penrose (1997). The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Roger Penrose (1992). Comments on 'Penrose and Mathematical Ability'. Analysis 52 (2):87 - 88.
Stewart Shapiro (2003). Mechanism, Truth, and Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
Roger Penrose (1994). Mechanisms, Microtubules, and the Mind. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (2):241-49.
William E. Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm: Penrose and the Godel Argument. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
Per Lindström (2001). Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
William S. Robinson (1992). Penrose and Mathematical Ability. Analysis 52 (2):80-88.
David J. Chalmers (1996). Minds, Machines, and Mathematics. Psyche 2:11-20.
Per Lindstrom (2006). Remarks on Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #106,472 of 1,089,054 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #69,801 of 1,089,054 )
How can I increase my downloads?