|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)|
|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.
Q. Yu (1992). Consistency, Mechanicalness, and the Logic of the Mind. Synthese 90 (1):145-79.
Taner Edis (1998). How Godel's Theorem Supports the Possibility of Machine Intelligence. Minds and Machines 8 (2):251-262.
J. J. C. Smart (1961). Godel's Theorem, Church's Theorem, and Mechanism. Synthese 13 (June):105-10.
Per Lindström (2001). Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
William E. Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm: Penrose and the Godel Argument. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
William Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):265-273.
Panu Raatikainen (2002). McCall's Gödelian Argument is Invalid. Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads42 ( #27,099 of 549,683 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #15,270 of 549,683 )
How can I increase my downloads?