Remarks on Penrose's new argument
Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237 (2006)
| Abstract | It is commonly agreed that the well-known Lucas–Penrose arguments and even Penrose’s ‘new argument’ in [Penrose, R. (1994): Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press] are inconclusive. It is, perhaps, less clear exactly why at least the latter is inconclusive. This note continues the discussion in [Lindström, P. (2001): Penrose’s new argument, J. Philos. Logic 30, 241–250; Shapiro, S.(2003): Mechanism, truth, and Penrose’s new argument, J. Philos. Logic 32, 19–42] and elsewhere of this question. | |||||||||
| Keywords | Knowability Logic Mechanism Mind Penrose, Roger Shapiro, Stewart | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,672 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesRoger Penrose (1997). The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Roger Penrose (1994). Mechanisms, Microtubules, and the Mind. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (2):241-49.
David J. Chalmers (1996). Minds, Machines, and Mathematics. Psyche 2:11-20.
William Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):265-273.
William S. Robinson (1992). Penrose and Mathematical Ability. Analysis 52 (2):80-88.
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.
Stewart Shapiro (2003). Mechanism, Truth, and Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads43 ( #26,127 of 549,037 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,272 of 549,037 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
