Mechanism, truth, and Penrose's new argument
Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42 (2003)
| Abstract | Sections 3.16 and 3.23 of Roger Penrose's Shadows of the mind (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1994) contain a subtle and intriguing new argument against mechanism, the thesis that the human mind can be accurately modeled by a Turing machine. The argument, based on the incompleteness theorem, is designed to meet standard objections to the original Lucas–Penrose formulations. The new argument, however, seems to invoke an unrestricted truth predicate (and an unrestricted knowability predicate). If so, its premises are inconsistent. The usual ways of restricting the predicates either invalidate Penrose's reasoning or require presuppositions that the mechanist can reject. | |||||||||
| Keywords | No keywords specified (fix it) | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| 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 articlesDavid J. Chalmers (1996). Minds, Machines, and Mathematics. Psyche 2:11-20.
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.
William E. Seager (2003). Yesterday's Algorithm: Penrose and the Godel Argument. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
Per Lindstrom (2006). Remarks on Penrose's New Argument. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):231-237.
Roger Penrose (1994). Mechanisms, Microtubules, and the Mind. Journal of Consciousness Studies 1 (2):241-49.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads44 ( #25,394 of 549,683 )Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,450 of 549,683 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
