Studia Semiotyczne 34 (1):243-266 (2020)

Authors
Paula Quinon
Lund University
Abstract
This paper reassesses the criticism of the Lucas-Penrose anti-mechanist argument, based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorems, as formulated by Krajewski : this argument only works with the additional extra-formal assumption that “the human mind is consistent”. Krajewski argues that this assumption cannot be formalized, and therefore that the anti-mechanist argument – which requires the formalization of the whole reasoning process – fails to establish that the human mind is not mechanistic. A similar situation occurs with a corollary to the argument, that the human mind allegedly outperforms machines, because although there is no exhaustive formal definition of natural numbers, mathematicians can successfully work with natural numbers. Again, the corollary requires an extra-formal assumption: “PA is complete” or “the set of all natural numbers exists”. I agree that extra-formal assumptions are necessary in order to validate the anti-mechanist argument and its corollary, and that those assumptions are problematic. However, I argue that formalization is possible and the problem is instead the circularity of reasoning that they cause. The human mind does not prove its own consistency, and outperforms the machine, simply by making the assumption “I am consistent”. Starting from the analysis of circularity, I propose a way of thinking about the interplay between informal and formal in mathematics.
Keywords the Lucas-Penrose argument, the Church-Turing thesis, Carnapian explications, natural numbers, computation, conceptual engineering, conceptual fixed points, conceptual vicious circles, deviant encodings, structuralism
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.26333/sts.xxxiv1.11
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 61,064
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

Logical Foundations of Probability.Rudolf Carnap - 1950 - Chicago]University of Chicago Press.
Computing Machinery and Intelligence.Alan M. Turing - 1950 - Mind 59 (October):433-60.

View all 41 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Implicit and Explicit Examples of the Phenomenon of Deviant Encodings.Paula Quinon - 2020 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 63 (1):53-67.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Implicit and Explicit Examples of the Phenomenon of Deviant Encodings.Paula Quinon - 2020 - Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 63 (1):53-67.
Mechanism, Truth, and Penrose's New Argument.Stewart Shapiro - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
Intuitionists Are Not (Turing) Machines.Crispin Wright - 1995 - Philosophia Mathematica 3 (1):86-102.
Penrose's New Argument.Per Lindström - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
Preface.Roman Kossak - 2020 - Studia Semiotyczne 34 (1):5-8.
Intuitionists Are Not Machines.Crispin Wright - 1995 - Philosophia Mathematica 3 (1):103-119.
Yesterday’s Algorithm.William Seager - 2003 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
McCall's Gödelian Argument is Invalid.Panu Raatikainen - 2002 - Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-12-09

Total views
14 ( #697,450 of 2,439,687 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #51,189 of 2,439,687 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes