CRITIQUE OF THREE GODELIAN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND

Q: How can I download an article?

To download an article from SID, first log in to the site, search for the article title, and click on the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I download an ISI article?

To download an ISI article on SID, enter the keyword or article title in the search bar, view the relevant results, click on the desired article, and select the 'Download Article' option.

Q: How can I access the SID database?

To access the SID database, visit SID.ir, create an account, and log in to access scientific resources.

Q: Is downloading articles from SID free?

Some articles on SID are available for free, while others require payment. Details are specified on the article's page.

ZAREPOUR MOHAMMAD SALEH; HODJATI SEYYED MOHAMMAD ALI

مرکز اطلاعات علمی Scientific Information Database (SID) - Trusted Source for Research and Academic Resources

Journal Paper

Paper Information

Journal: Wisdom and Philosophy Year:2010 | Volume:6 | Issue:1 (21) Page(s): 33-47

Download Full-Text

Persian Verion

View:

894

Download:

Cites:

Information Journal Paper

Title

CRITIQUE OF THREE GODELIAN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND

Author(s)

ZAREPOUR MOHAMMAD SALEH | HODJATI SEYYED MOHAMMAD ALI | Issue Writer Certificate

Keywords

MIND MACHINE IDENTITYQ3

FORMAL SYSTEMQ3

GODEL THEOREMQ3

GODELIAN ARGUMENTSQ3

RUDY RUCKERQ3

JOHN RANDOLPH LUCAS AND ROGER PENROSEQ3

Abstract

Some philosophers apply Godel incompleteness theorems to show that modeling the mind by means of a machine is not possible. Arguments based on these theorems are called Gödelian arguments in philosophy of mind. In this article, we want to criticize three GODELIAN ARGUMENTS. These arguments have been presented, respectively, by RUDY RUCKER, JOHN RANDOLPH LUCAS AND ROGER PENROSE. We try to show that: (a) some parts of Rucker’s argument are and some other parts of it are not sound; (b) Lucas' argument is absolutely failed; and (c) some parts of Penrose’s argument are sound and some other parts of it are doubtful.

Cites

No record.

References

Cite

APA: Copy

ZAREPOUR, MOHAMMAD SALEH, & HODJATI, SEYYED MOHAMMAD ALI. (2010). CRITIQUE OF THREE GODELIAN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND. HEKMAT VA FALSAFEH (WISDOM AND PHILOSOPHY), 6(1 (21)), 33-47. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/123537/en

Vancouver: Copy

ZAREPOUR MOHAMMAD SALEH, HODJATI SEYYED MOHAMMAD ALI. CRITIQUE OF THREE GODELIAN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND. HEKMAT VA FALSAFEH (WISDOM AND PHILOSOPHY)[Internet]. 2010;6(1 (21)):33-47. Available from: https://sid.ir/paper/123537/en

IEEE: Copy

MOHAMMAD SALEH ZAREPOUR, and SEYYED MOHAMMAD ALI HODJATI, “CRITIQUE OF THREE GODELIAN ARGUMENTS IN PHILOSOPHY OF MIND,” HEKMAT VA FALSAFEH (WISDOM AND PHILOSOPHY), vol. 6, no. 1 (21), pp. 33–47, 2010, [Online]. Available: https://sid.ir/paper/123537/en

Related Journal Papers