Authors
Abstract
Lucas-Penrose type arguments have been the focus of many papers in the literature. In the present paper we attempt to evaluate the consequences of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems for the philosophy of the mind. We argue that the best answer to this question was given by Gödel already in 1951 when he realized that either our intellectual capability is not representable by a Turing Machine, or we can never know with mathematical certainty what such a machine is. But his considerations became known only in recent times when many scholars were already aware of Benacerraf’s and Chihara’s analyses on the consequences of Gödel’s incompleteness theorems for the philosophy of the mind. Benacerraf and Chihara, in fact, discussing Lucas’ paper, arrived at the same conclusions as Gödel in the sixties, but in a more formal way. After Penrose’s provocative arguments, Shapiro again shed light on the question. In our paper, after a broad and simple presentation of the contributions to the debate made by different authors, we show how to present Gödel’s argument in a rigorous way, highlighting the necessary philosophical premises of Gödel’s argument and more in general of Gödelian arguments.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
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: 56,016
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

The Emperor’s New Mind.Roger Penrose - 1989 - Oxford University Press.
Mathematical Truth.Paul Benacerraf - 1973 - Journal of Philosophy 70 (19):661-679.
Minds and Machines.Hilary Putnam - 1960 - In Sidney Hook (ed.), Dimensions of Minds. New York, USA: New York University Press. pp. 138-164.

View all 39 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems and Computer Science.Roman Murawski - 1997 - Foundations of Science 2 (1):123-135.
Yesterday’s Algorithm.William Seager - 2003 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 3 (9):265-273.
On the Philosophical Relevance of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems.Panu Raatikainen - 2005 - Revue Internationale de Philosophie 59 (4):513-534.
Minds, Machines and Gödel.J. R. Lucas - 2003 - Etica E Politica 5 (1):1.
Penrose's New Argument.Per Lindström - 2001 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (3):241-250.
McCall's Gödelian Argument is Invalid.Panu Raatikainen - 2002 - Facta Philosophica 4 (1):167-69.
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.
Gödel and 'the Objective Existence' of Mathematical Objects.Pierre Cassou-Noguès - 2005 - History and Philosophy of Logic 26 (3):211-228.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2015-09-07

Total views
13 ( #711,958 of 2,403,592 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #551,240 of 2,403,592 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes