We Turing machines aren't expected-utility maximizers (even ideally)
Philosophical Studies 64 (1):115 - 123 (1991)
| Abstract | This article has no associated abstract. (fix it) | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | No categories specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,709 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesJack Copeland (1998). Turing's o-Machines, Searle, Penrose, and the Brain. Analysis 58 (2):128-138.
Joel David Hamkins & Andy Lewis (2000). Infinite Time Turing Machines. Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (2):567-604.
Hans Lottenbach (1994). Expected Utility and Constrained Maximization: Problems of Compatibility. Erkenntnis 41 (1):37 - 48.
Leon Horsten (1995). The Church-Turing Thesis and Effective Mundane Procedures. Minds and Machines 5 (1):1-8.
Stephen A. Clark (2000). Revealed Preference and Expected Utility. Theory and Decision 49 (2):159-174.
Peter Kugel (2002). Computing Machines Can't Be Intelligent (...And Turing Said So). Minds and Machines 12 (4):563-579.
Joel David Hamkins (2002). Infinite Time Turing Machines. Minds and Machines 12 (4):567-604.
B. Jack Copeland (2002). Accelerating Turing Machines. Minds and Machines 12 (2):281-300.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads15 ( #78,761 of 549,700 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,425 of 549,700 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
