I must start with an apologia. My original paper, ``Minds, Machines and GĂ¶del'', was written in the wake of Turing's 1950 paper in Mind, and was intended to show that minds were not Turing machines. Why, then, didn't I couch the argument in terms of Turing's theorem, which is easyish to prove and applies directly to Turing machines, instead of GĂ¶del's theorem, which is horrendously difficult to prove, and doesn't so naturally or obviously apply to machines? The reason was that GĂ¶del's theorem gave me something more: it raises questions of truth which evidently bear on the nature of mind, whereas Turing's theorem does not; it shows not only that the GĂ¶delian well-formed formula is unprovable-in-the-system, but that it is true. It shows something about reasoning, that it is not completely rule-bound, so that we, who are rational, can transcend the rules of any particular logistic system, and construe the GĂ¶delian well-formed formula not just as a string of symbols but as a proposition which is true. Turing's theorem might well be applied to a computer which someone claimed to represent a human mind, but it is not so obvious that what the computer could not do, the mind could. But it is very obvious that we have a concept of truth. Even if, as was claimed in a previous paper, it is not the summum bonum, it is a bonum, and one it is characteristic of minds to value. A representation of the human mind which could take no account of truth would be inherently implausible. Turing's theorem, though making the same negative point as GĂ¶del's theorem, that some things cannot be done by even idealised computers, does not make the further positive point that we, in as much as we are rational agents, can do that very thing that the computer cannot. I have however, sometimes wondered whether I could not construct a parallel argument based on Turing's theorem, and have toyed with the idea of a von Neumann machine. A von Neumann machine was a black box, inside which was housed John von Neumann..
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Turing and the Serendipitous Discovery of the Modern Computer.Aurea Anguera de Sojo, Juan Ares, Juan A. Lara, David Lizcano, María A. Martínez & Juan Pazos - 2013 - Foundations of Science 18 (3):545-557.
The Church-Turing ‘Thesis’ as a Special Corollary of Gödel’s Completeness Theorem.Saul A. Kripke - 2013 - In B. J. Copeland, C. Posy & O. Shagrir (eds.), Computability: Turing, Gödel, Church, and Beyond. MIT Press.
Computing Machines Can't Be Intelligent (...And Turing Said So).Peter Kugel - 2002 - Minds and Machines 12 (4):563-579.
Philosophy of Mind Is (in Part) Philosophy of Computer Science.Darren Abramson - 2011 - Minds and Machines 21 (2):203-219.
Alan Turing and the Mathematical Objection.Gualtiero Piccinini - 2003 - Minds and Machines 13 (1):23-48.
Other Bodies, Other Minds: A Machine Incarnation of an Old Philosophical Problem. [REVIEW]Stevan Harnad - 1991 - Minds and Machines 1 (1):43-54.
Turing's o-Machines, Searle, Penrose, and the Brain.Jack Copeland - 1998 - Analysis 58 (2):128-138.
On Some Properties of Humanly Known and Humanly Knowable Mathematics.Jason L. Megill, Tim Melvin & Alex Beal - 2014 - Axiomathes 24 (1):81-88.
Undecidability in the Imitation Game.Y. Sato & T. Ikegami - 2004 - Minds and Machines 14 (2):133-43.
Turing's Golden: How Well Turing's Work Stands Today.Justin Leiber - 2006 - Philosophical Psychology 19 (1):13-46.
Thinking Machines: Some Fundamental Confusions. [REVIEW]John T. Kearns - 1997 - Minds and Machines 7 (2):269-87.
Added to index2010-12-22
Total downloads9 ( #455,279 of 2,153,834 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,274 of 2,153,834 )
How can I increase my downloads?