Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||I have no quarrel with the first two sentences: but the third, though charitable and courteous, is quite untrue. Although there are criticisms which can be levelled against the Gödelian argument, most of the critics have not read either of my, or either of Penrose's, expositions carefully, and seek to refute arguments we never put forward, or else propose as a fatal objection one that had already been considered and countered in our expositions of the argument. Hence my title. The Gödelian Argument uses Gödel's theorem to show that minds cannot be explained in purely mechanist terms. It has been put forward, in different forms, by Gödel himself, by Penrose, and by me|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
Alexander R. Pruss (2009). A Gödelian Ontological Argument Improved. Religious Studies 45 (3):347-353.
William Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):265-273.
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.
J. J. C. Smart (1961). Godel's Theorem, Church's Theorem, and Mechanism. Synthese 13 (June):105-10.
Taner Edis (1998). How Godel's Theorem Supports the Possibility of Machine Intelligence. Minds and Machines 8 (2):251-262.
Q. Yu (1992). Consistency, Mechanicalness, and the Logic of the Mind. Synthese 90 (1):145-79.
Panu Raatikainen (2002). McCall's Gödelian Argument is Invalid. Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads49 ( #25,884 of 739,396 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,948 of 739,396 )
How can I increase my downloads?