Remarks on Penrose’s “New Argument”
- 62 Downloads
It is commonly agreed that the well-known Lucas–Penrose arguments and even Penrose’s ‘new argument’ in [Penrose, R. (1994): Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press] are inconclusive. It is, perhaps, less clear exactly why at least the latter is inconclusive. This note continues the discussion in [Lindström, P. (2001): Penrose’s new argument, J. Philos. Logic 30, 241–250; Shapiro, S.(2003): Mechanism, truth, and Penrose’s new argument, J. Philos. Logic 32, 19–42] and elsewhere of this question.
Key Wordsknowability (in mathematics) Lucas–Penrose thesis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Chalmers, D. J. (1995): Minds, machines, and mathematics. A review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose, Psyche 2, (http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au).
- 3.Penrose, R. (1994): Shadows of the Mind, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 4.Penrose, R. (1995): Beyond the doubting of a shadow. A reply to commentaries on Shadows of the Mind, Psyche 2, (http://psyche.cs.monash.edu.au).