Yesterday's Algorithm

Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (3):265-273 (2003)
Abstract
Roger Penrose is infamous for defending aversion of John Lucas’s argument that Gödel’s incompleteness results show that the mind cannot be mechanistically (or, today, computationally) explained. Penrose’s argument has been subjected to a number of criticisms which, though correct as far as they go, leave open some peculiar and troubling features of the appeal to Gödel’s theorem. I try to reveal these peculiarities and develop a new criticism of the Penrose argument
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 11,074
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Per Lindström (2001). Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
Per Lindstrom (2006). Remarks on Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
Rick Grush & P. Churchland (1995). Gaps in Penrose's Toiling. In Thomas Metzinger (ed.), Conscious Experience. Ferdinand Schoningh. 10-29.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2011-01-09

Total downloads

10 ( #146,672 of 1,101,544 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

5 ( #59,466 of 1,101,544 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.