David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273 (2003)
Roger Penrose is justly famous for his work in physics and mathematics but he is _notorious_ for his endorsement of the Gödel argument (see his 1989, 1994, 1997). This argument, first advanced by J. R. Lucas (in 1961), attempts to show that Gödel’s (first) incompleteness theorem can be seen to reveal that the human mind transcends all algorithmic models of it1. Penrose's version of the argument has been seen to fall victim to the original objections raised against Lucas (see Boolos (1990) and for a particularly intemperate review, Putnam (1994)). Yet I believe that more can and should be said about the argument. Only a brief review is necessary here although I wish to present the argument in a somewhat peculiar form.
|Keywords||Cognition Incompleteness Logic Goedel Penrose, R|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Rick Grush & P. Churchland (1995). Gaps in Penrose's Toiling. In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience. Ferdinand Schoningh. 10-29.
Roger Penrose (1989). The Emperor's New Mind. Oxford University Press.
David J. Chalmers (1996). Minds, Machines, and Mathematics. Psyche 2:11-20.
Stewart Shapiro (2003). Mechanism, Truth, and Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
Per Lindstrom (2006). Remarks on Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
William S. Robinson (1992). Penrose and Mathematical Ability. Analysis 52 (2):80-88.
Per Lindström (2001). Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
William Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):265-273.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads80 ( #12,908 of 1,008,788 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,700 of 1,008,788 )
How can I increase my downloads?