Abstract
This piece continues the tradition of arguments by John Lucas, Roger Penrose and others to the effect that the human mind is not a machine. Kurt Gödel thought that the intensional paradoxes stand in the way of proving that the mind is not a machine. According to Gödel, a successful proof that the mind is not a machine would require a solution to the intensional paradoxes. We provide what might seem to be a partial vindication of Gödel and show that if a particular solution to the intensional paradoxes is adopted, one can indeed give an argument to the effect that the mind is not a machine.
Keywords Gödel's disjunction  Gödelian arguments against mechanism  incompleteness theorems  intensional paradox  mechanism  theories of truth
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1002/tht3.271
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: 71,290
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

Outline of a Theory of Truth.Saul Kripke - 1975 - Journal of Philosophy 72 (19):690-716.
Minds, Machines and Gödel.John R. Lucas - 1961 - Philosophy 36 (137):112-127.
Minds, Machines and Gödel.J. R. Lucas - 1961 - Etica E Politica 5 (1):1.
Reflecting on Incompleteness.Solomon Feferman - 1991 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 56 (1):1-49.

View all 20 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

On a Purported Proof That the Mind Is Not a Machine.Peter Koellner - 2018 - Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 7 (2):91-96.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Computer Science.Roman Murawski - 1997 - Foundations of Science 2 (1):123-135.
McCall’s Gödelian Argument is Invalid.Panu Raatikainen - 2002 - Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.
Minds, Machines and Gödel.J. R. Lucas - 1961 - Etica E Politica 5 (1):1.
Minds, Machines, and Gödel: A Retrospect.J. R. Lucas - 1996 - In P. J. R. Millican & A. Clark (eds.), Etica E Politica. Clarendon Press. pp. 1.
Mind in the Shadows.Michael Detlefsen - 1998 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29 (1):123-136.
Automated Theorem Proving and Its Prospects. [REVIEW]Desmond Fearnley-Sander - 1995 - PSYCHE: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research On Consciousness 2.
Mechanism, Truth, and Penrose's New Argument.Stewart Shapiro - 2003 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 32 (1):19-42.
A Note on Boolos' Proof of the Incompleteness Theorem.Makoto Kikuchi - 1994 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 40 (4):528-532.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.Panu Raatikainen - 2013 - The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (Ed.).

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-04-11

Total views
55 ( #208,320 of 2,519,142 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #407,861 of 2,519,142 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes