Lucas against Mechanism

@article{Lewis1969LucasAM,
  title={Lucas against Mechanism},
  author={David Lewis},
  journal={Philosophy},
  year={1969},
  volume={44},
  pages={231 - 233}
}
  • D. Lewis
  • Published 1 July 1969
  • Philosophy
  • Philosophy
J. R. Lucas argues in “Minds, Machines, and Gödel”, that his potential output of truths of arithmetic cannot be duplicated by any Turing machine, and a fortiori cannot be duplicated by any machine. Given any Turing machine that generates a sequence of truths of arithmetic, Lucas can produce as true some sentence of arithmetic that the machine will never generate. Therefore Lucas is no machine. 

Mechanism: A Rejoinder

Lewis argues that I have established that there is a certain Lucas arithmetic which is clearly true and cannot be the output of some Turing machine. If I could produce the whole of Lucas arithmetic,

Gödel, Lucas, and mechanical models of the mind

TLDR
It is argued that the existence of an algorithm, capable of generating a godel sentence for an axiomatic model of that same algorithm, is not incompatible with Godel's well‐known results, and Gödel's results do not provide grounds for believing that cognitive agents are incapable of proving the consistency of correct formal models of their own cognitive mechanisms.

Menschen, maschinen und gödels theorem

Mechanism is the thesis that men can be considered as machines, that there is no essential difference between minds and machines.John Lucas has argued that it is a consequence of Gödel's theorem that

Consistency, Turing Computability and Gödel’s First Incompleteness Theorem

TLDR
It is argued that the existence of these algorithms, when conjoined with Gödel’s results and accepted theorems of recursion theory, does provide the basis for an apparent paradox, which illuminates the truth status of axioms in formal models of programs and Turing machines.

Why Gödel's Theorem Cannot Refute Computationalism

Why we shouldn't fault Lucas and Penrose for continuing to believe in the Goedelian argument against computationalism

The only fault we can fairly lay at Lucas' and Penrose's doors, for continuing to believe in the essential soundness of the Goedelian argument, is their naive faith in, first, non-verifiable

The Computational Theory of Mind

TLDR
CCTM holds that a suitable abstract computational model offers a literally true description of core mental processes, and argues that addressable memory gives a better model of the mind than non-addressable memory.

Betting your life on an algorithm

  • D. Dennett
  • Philosophy
    Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  • 1990
In The Emperors New Mind (1989) [henceforth Emperor] I attempt to put forward a point of view (which I believe to be new) concerning the nature of the physics that might underlie conscious thought

Gödel’s Theorem and Strong AI: Is Reason Blind?

In an episode of the television series Star Trek an ambitious star fleet researcher wants to requisition the android Mr. Data as an experimental subject. Data objected to this on the basis that one

Shadows of the mind - a search for the missing science of consciousness

TLDR
Roger Penrose cuts a wide swathe through modern science, providing penetrating looks at everything from Turing computability and Godel's incompleteness, via Schrodinger's Cat and the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-testing problem, to detailed microbiology.

References

SHOWING 1-2 OF 2 REFERENCES

Minds, Machines and Gödel

Gödei's Theorem seems to me to prove that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines. So also has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I

Transfinite Recursive Progressions of Axiomatic Theories

The theories considered here are based on the classical functional calculus (possibly of higher order) together with a set A of non-logical axioms; they are also assumed to contain classical