David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69 (2002)
<span class='Hi'>Storrs</span> McCall continues the tradition of Lucas and Penrose in an attempt to refute mechanism by appealing to Gödel’s incompleteness theorem (McCall 2001). That is, McCall argues that Gödel’s theorem “reveals a sharp dividing line between human and machine thinking”. According to McCall, “[h]uman beings are familiar with the distinction between truth and theoremhood, but Turing machines cannot look beyond their own output”. However, although McCall’s argumentation is slightly more sophisticated than the earlier Gödelian anti-mechanist arguments, in the end it fails badly, as it is at odds with the logical facts.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Storrs McCall (2001). On "Seeing" the Truth of the Godel Sentence. Facta Philosophica 3:25-30.
B. Garrett (2012). A Comment on McCall. Analysis 72 (2):293-295.
J. J. C. Smart (1961). Godel's Theorem, Church's Theorem, and Mechanism. Synthese 13 (June):105-10.
Storrs McCall (1999). Can a Turing Machine Know That the Godel Sentence is True? Journal of Philosophy 96 (10):525-32.
Storrs McCall (1999). Can a Turing Machine Know That the Gödel Sentence is True? Journal of Philosophy 96 (10):525 - 532.
A. George & Daniel J. Velleman (2000). Leveling the Playing Field Between Mind and Machine: A Reply to McCall. Journal of Philosophy 97 (8):456-452.
H. Gaifman (2000). What Godel's Incompleteness Result Does and Does Not Show. Journal of Philosophy 97 (8):462-471.
Neil Tennant (2001). On Turing Machines Knowing Their Own Gödel-Sentences. Philosophia Mathematica 9 (1):72-79.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #67,420 of 1,006,443 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,266 of 1,006,443 )
How can I increase my downloads?