David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 160 (2):285-295 (2008)
Kripke (1982, Wittgenstein on rules and private language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) presents a rule-following paradox in terms of what we meant by our past use of “plus”, but the same paradox can be applied to any other term in natural language. Many responses to the paradox concentrate on fixing determinate meaning for “plus”, or for a small class of other natural language terms. This raises a problem: how can these particular responses be generalised to the whole of natural language? In this paper, I propose a solution. I argue that if natural language is computable in a sense defined below, and the Church–Turing thesis is accepted, then this auxiliary problem can be solved
|Keywords||Church–Turing thesis Kripke Computational theory of mind Extended cognition Rule-following|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Saul A. Kripke (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Harvard University Press.
John R. Searle (1980). Minds, Brains and Programs. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3 (3):417-57.
Hilary Putnam (1975). The Meaning of 'Meaning'. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7:131-193.
Citations of this work BETA
Adam C. Podlaskowski (2012). Simple Tasks, Abstractions, and Semantic Dispositionalism. Dialectica 66 (4):453-470.
Similar books and articles
Michael Rescorla (2007). Church's Thesis and the Conceptual Analysis of Computability. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 48 (2):253-280.
Eli Dresner (2008). Turing-, Human- and Physical Computability: An Unasked Question. [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 18 (3):349-355.
Oron Shagrir & Itamar Pitowsky (2003). Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines 13 (1):87-101.
George Rudebusch (1986). Hoffman on Kripke's Wittgenstein. Philosophical Research Archives 12:177-182.
Itamar Pitowsky (2003). Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines 13 (1):87-101.
Paolo Cotogno (2003). Hypercomputation and the Physical Church-Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 54 (2):181-223.
Tim Button (2009). SAD Computers and Two Versions of the Church–Turing Thesis. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 60 (4):765-792.
B. Jack Copeland (2008). The Church-Turing Thesis. In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. The Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University
Saul A. Kripke (2013). The Church-Turing ‘Thesis’ as a Special Corollary of Gödel’s Completeness Theorem. In B. J. Copeland, C. Posy & O. Shagrir (eds.), Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and Beyond. MIT Press
Adam M. Croom (2010). Wittgenstein, Kripke, and the Rule Following Paradox. Dialogue 52 (3):103-109.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #54,719 of 2,121,929 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #83,955 of 2,121,929 )
How can I increase my downloads?