Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Gödel's incompleteness proof reveals fundamental limitati... — Carmelics
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Computational processes cannot account for consciousness

    Gödel's incompleteness proof reveals fundamental limitations on formal systems that prevent them from capturing all aspects of mind

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    2 topics

    Causation1 linked

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Consciousness & Mind
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Philosophy of Language
    1 linked

    Related

    Computational processes cannot account for consciousnessThe Chinese Room argument demonstrates that symbol manipulation without understa...

    Similar

    The incompleteness of ZFC can potentially be addressed by finding new ...81%Turing machines satisfy the conditions of Gödel's incompleteness theor...80%Searle's argument that anything mapping onto a formal system is a form...80%Gödel and Cohen demonstrated the mathematical incompleteness of ZFC se...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: chinese-room
    View source passageHide passage
    Others however have replied to the VMR, including Stevan Harnad and mathematical physicist Roger Penrose. Penrose is generally sympathetic to the points Searle raises with the Chinese Room argument, and has argued against the Virtual Mind reply. Penrose does not believe that computational processes can account for consciousness, both on Chinese Room grounds, as well as because of limitations on formal systems revealed by Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness proof. (Penrose has two books on mind and consc

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective