Minds and Machines

, Volume 20, Issue 3, pp 423–439 | Cite as

Are Turing Machines Platonists? Inferentialism and the Computational Theory of Mind

Article

Abstract

We first discuss Michael Dummett’s philosophy of mathematics and Robert Brandom’s philosophy of language to demonstrate that inferentialism entails the falsity of Church’s Thesis and, as a consequence, the Computational Theory of Mind. This amounts to an entirely novel critique of mechanism in the philosophy of mind, one we show to have tremendous advantages over the traditional Lucas-Penrose argument.

Keywords

Mechanism Church’s thesis Computational theory of mind Dualism Inferentialism Platonism Lucas-Penrose argument Brandom Dummett Detlefsen Wright 

References

  1. Belnap, N. D. (1962). Tonk, plonk, and plink. Analysis, 22, 130–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benacerraf, P. (1967). God, the devil and Gödel. The Monist, 51, 9–32.Google Scholar
  3. Boolos, G., & Jeffrey, C. (1989). Computability and logic (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandom, R. (2000). Articulating reasons (an introduction to inferentialism). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cogburn, J. (2000). Logical revision re-revisited: The Wright/Salerno argument for intuitionism. Philosophical Studies, 60.1, 5–12.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Cogburn, J. (2004). The philosophical basis of what? The anti-realist case for dialethism. In G. Priest, J. C. Beall, & B. Armour Garb (Eds.), The law of non-contradiction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cogburn, J. (2005a). The logic of logical revision: Formalizing Dummett’s argument. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83.1, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cogburn, J. (2005b). Tonking a theory of content: An inferentialist rejoinder. Logic and Logical Philosophy, 13, 31–36.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Cogburn, J. (2005c). Inferentialism and tacit knowledge. Behavior and Philosophy, 32, 503–524.Google Scholar
  10. Cogburn, J. (2005d). The logic of logical revision: Formalizing Dummett’s argument. The Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 83, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Detlefsen, M. (1995). Wright on the non-mechanizability of intuitionist reasoning. Philosophia Mathematica, 3, 103–119.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Dragalin, A. (1988). Mathematical intuitionism: Introduction to proof theory. Providence: America Mathematical Society.MATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Dummett, M. (1991). The logical basis of metaphysics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Epstein, R. L., & Carnielli, A. (1999). Computability: Computable functions, logic, and the foundations of mathematics. Wadsworth: Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  15. Gödel, K. (1951). Josiah Willard Gibbs lecture. In S. Feferman (Ed.), K. Gödel collected works (Vol. III). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lucas, J. R. (2002). The Gödelian argument: Turn over the page. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/turn.html. Cited October 4, 2002.
  17. Penrose, R. (1989). The emperor’s new mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Prior, A. N. (1960). The runabout inference ticket. Analysis, 21, 38–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Putnam, H. (1960). Minds and machines. In S. Hook (Ed.), Dimensions of mind (pp. 138–164). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Putnam, H. (1995). Review of R. Penrose’s shadows of the mind. A search for the missing science of consciousness. Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, 32, 370–373.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  21. Sellars, W. (1980). Inference and meaning. In J. Sicha (Ed.), Pure pragmatics and possible worlds. Reseda: Ridgeview Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  22. Tenant, N. (1997). The taming of the true. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  23. Wright, C. (1995). Intuitionists are not (turing) machines. Philosophia Mathematica, 3, 86–102.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  2. 2.NorfolkUSA

Personalised recommendations