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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Lucas and Penrose extended this: if human cognition is not Turing-computable, then 'computable' in the claim smuggles in an unjustified restriction to formal-mechanical processes.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.No empirical evidence demonstrates humans actually solve Gödelian tasks non-computationally; intuition about cognition is unreliable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.'Turing-computable' already encompasses vast logical space; calling non-Turing processes 'real' cognition just relabels confusion without explanation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Lucas-Penrose arguments commit logical fallacy: from 'minds aren't provably formal' they conclude 'minds aren't formal'—a gap remains.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Human mathematical insight (e.g., Gödel's incompleteness) appears to transcend formal systems, suggesting non-algorithmic cognition.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defining 'computable' narrowly as Turing-computable presupposes computationalism without independent justification from cognitive science.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If human minds access truths unprovable in formal systems, they operate beyond mechanical rule-following, requiring broader ontology.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.