Talk:Minds, Machines and Gödel

Philosophy: Literature / Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Logic

critiques of paper edit

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I think Paul Benacerraf made a paper which was a critique of Lucas's paper. I've got a copy of it somewhere in my attic. I'll see if I can get a precise reference for the paper.

publunch 9th October 2004 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.114.4 (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2004 (UTC)Reply

The paper you are looking for is P. Benacerraf, "God, the devil, and G¨odel", TheMonist, vol. 51 (1967), pp. 9–32. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortexoid (talk) 07:34, 11 October 2004 (UTC)Reply

The Benacerraf paper can be found online at JSTOR. --50.53.63.18 (talk) 22:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Douglas Hofstadter is also critical (scornful) of this paper in Godel, Escher and Bach. On the other hand Roger Penrose induces Lucas's argument in 'Shadows of the Mind', and possibly in 'The Emperor's New Mind'. I would love to see more discussion of this argument. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Add topic