Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Minds, Machines, and Gödel: A Retrospect
View through CrossRef
Abstract
I must start with an apologia. My original paper, ‘Minds, Machines and Gödel’, was written in the wake of Turing’s 1950 paper in Mind, and was intended to show that minds were not Turing machines. Why, then, didn’t I couch the argument in terms of Turing’s theorem, which is easyish to prove and applies directly to Turing machines, instead of Gödel’s theorem, which is horrendously difficult to prove, and doesn’t so naturally or obviously apply to machines? The reason was that Gödel’s theorem gave me something more: it raises questions of truth which evidently bear on the nature of mind, whereas Turing’s theorem does not; it shows not only that the Gödelian well-formed formula is unprovable-in-the-system, but that it is true. It shows something about reasoning, that it is not completely rule-bound, so that we, who are rational, can transcend the rules of any particular logistic system, and construe the Gödelian well-formed formula not just as a string of symbols but as a proposition which is true. Turing’s theorem might well be applied to a computer which someone claimed to represent a human mind, but it is not so obvious that what the computer could not do, the mind could. But it is very obvious that we have a concept of truth. Even if it is not the summum bonum, it is a bonum, and one it is characteristic of minds to value.
Title: Minds, Machines, and Gödel: A Retrospect
Description:
Abstract
I must start with an apologia.
My original paper, ‘Minds, Machines and Gödel’, was written in the wake of Turing’s 1950 paper in Mind, and was intended to show that minds were not Turing machines.
Why, then, didn’t I couch the argument in terms of Turing’s theorem, which is easyish to prove and applies directly to Turing machines, instead of Gödel’s theorem, which is horrendously difficult to prove, and doesn’t so naturally or obviously apply to machines? The reason was that Gödel’s theorem gave me something more: it raises questions of truth which evidently bear on the nature of mind, whereas Turing’s theorem does not; it shows not only that the Gödelian well-formed formula is unprovable-in-the-system, but that it is true.
It shows something about reasoning, that it is not completely rule-bound, so that we, who are rational, can transcend the rules of any particular logistic system, and construe the Gödelian well-formed formula not just as a string of symbols but as a proposition which is true.
Turing’s theorem might well be applied to a computer which someone claimed to represent a human mind, but it is not so obvious that what the computer could not do, the mind could.
But it is very obvious that we have a concept of truth.
Even if it is not the summum bonum, it is a bonum, and one it is characteristic of minds to value.
Related Results
Alfred Tarski
Alfred Tarski
Abstract
Alfred Tarski first met Kurt Gödel on the occasion of his visit to Vienna early in 1930, at the invitation of Karl Menger. Their subsequent contact, both pe...
GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM MAKES THE QUANTUM DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT UNDECIDABLE
GÖDEL’S INCOMPLETENESS THEOREM MAKES THE QUANTUM DOUBLE SLIT EXPERIMENT UNDECIDABLE
Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem refers to incompleteness in the sense that there are always statements which can be formulated within a formal system, but which re-main unprove...
Karl Popper
Karl Popper
Abstract
Karl Popper (1902-1994) was a noted philosopher, born and educated in Vienna, who from 1946 on taught at the London School of Economics. He first met Gödel ...
The General Idea Behind Gödel’s Proof
The General Idea Behind Gödel’s Proof
In the next several chapters we will be studying incompleteness proofs for various axiomatizations of arithmetic. Gödel, 1931, carried out his original proof for axiomatic set theo...
Goedel's Theorem and Mechanism
Goedel's Theorem and Mechanism
In “Minds, Machines, and Gödel”, J. R. Lucas claims that Goedel's incompleteness theorem constitutes a proof “that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as ma...
Rosser Systems
Rosser Systems
Our first proof of the incompleteness of P.A. was based on the assumption that P.A. is correct. Gödel’s proof of the last chapter was based on the metamathematically weaker assumpt...
Many Valued Logic of Gödel and Łukasiewicz
Many Valued Logic of Gödel and Łukasiewicz
Gödel and Łukasiewicz proposed the three-valued logic by adding the third logical situation, which includes uncertainty and ambiguity, to the classical two logical values, true or ...
Hilbert and his famous problem
Hilbert and his famous problem
In 1936 mathematics was changing profoundly, thanks to Turing and his fellow revolutionaries Gödel and Church. Older views about the nature of mathematics, such as those powerfully...

