David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy 36 (April-July):112-127 (1961)
Goedel's theorem states that in any consistent system which is strong enough to produce simple arithmetic there are formulae which cannot be proved-in-the-system, but which we can see to be true. Essentially, we consider the formula which says, in effect, "This formula is unprovable-in-the-system". If this formula were provable-in-the-system, we should have a contradiction: for if it were provablein-the-system, then it would not be unprovable-in-the-system, so that "This formula is unprovable-in-the-system" would be false: equally, if it were provable-in-the-system, then it would not be false, but would be true, since in any consistent system nothing false can be provedin-the-system, but only truths. So the formula "This formula is unprovable-in-the-system" is not provable-in-the-system, but unprovablein-the-system. Further, if the formula "This formula is unprovablein- the-system" is unprovable-in-the-system, then it is true that that formula is unprovable-in-the-system, that is, "This formula is unprovable-in-the-system" is true. Goedel's theorem must apply to cybernetical machines, because it is of the essence of being a machine, that it should be a concrete instantiation of a formal system. It follows that given any machine which is consistent and capable of doing simple arithmetic, there is a formula which it is incapable of producing as being true---i.e., the formula is unprovable-in-the-system-but which we can see to be true. It follows that no machine can be a complete or adequate model of the mind, that minds are essentially different from machines
|Keywords||Machine Mechanism Minds Philosophical Anthropology Goedel|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
John R. Searle (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417-57.
Darren Abramson (2011). Philosophy of Mind Is (in Part) Philosophy of Computer Science. Minds and Machines 21 (2):203-219.
Amir Horowitz (2009). Turning the Zombie on its Head. Synthese 170 (1):191 - 210.
Gualtiero Piccinini & Sonya Bahar (2013). Neural Computation and the Computational Theory of Cognition. Cognitive Science 37 (3):453-488.
Achim Hoffmann (2010). Can Machines Think? An Old Question Reformulated. Minds and Machines 20 (2):203-212.
Similar books and articles
F. H. George (1962). Minds, Machines and Godel: Another Reply to Mr. Lucas. Philosophy 37 (January):62-63.
Melvin Fitting (2012). Barcan Both Ways. Journal of Applied Non-Classical Logics 9 (2-3):329-344.
C. Whitely (1962). Minds, Machines and Godel: A Reply to Mr Lucas. Philosophy 37 (January):61-62.
Panu Raatikainen (2005). On the Philosophical Relevance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 59 (4):513-534.
Rosemarie Rheinwald (1991). Menschen, Maschinen Und Gödels Theorem. Erkenntnis 34 (1):1 - 21.
Taner Edis (1998). How Godel's Theorem Supports the Possibility of Machine Intelligence. Minds and Machines 8 (2):251-262.
Ross T. Brady (1993). Rules in Relevant Logic — II: Formula Representation. Studia Logica 52 (4):565 - 585.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads96 ( #13,602 of 1,101,860 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #34,086 of 1,101,860 )
How can I increase my downloads?