The 'mental eye' defence of an infinitized version of Yablo's paradox

Analysis

Volumn 63, Issue 277, 2003, Pages 61-70

  Bringsjord, Selmer ^a   Van Heuveln, Bram ^a  

^a RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 2442621355     PISSN: 00032638     EISSN: 14678284     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.0003-2638.2003.00397.x     Document Type: Review

References (34)

1. Barwise, J. 1980. Infinitary logics. In Modern Logic: A Survey, ed. E. Agazzi, 93-112. Dordrecht: Reidel
2. Beall, JC. 2001. Is Yablo's paradox non-circular? Analysis 60: 176-87
3. Benardete, J. 1964. Infinity: An Essay in Metaphysics. Oxford: Clarendon Press
4. Boolos, G. and R. Jeffrey. 1989. Computability and Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
5. Bringsjord, S. 1992. What Robots Can and Can't Be. Dordrecht: Kluwer
6. Bringsjord, S. 1994. Computation, among other things, is beneath us. Minds and Machines 4: 469-88
7. Bringsjord, S. 1997. An argument for the uncomputability of infinitary mathematical expertise. In Expertise in Context, ed. K. Ford, P. Hayes and P. Feltovich. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press
8. Bringsjord, S. 1998. Philosophy and 'super' computation. In The Digital Phoenix: How Computers are Changing Philosophy, ed. T. Bynam and J. Moor, 231-52. Oxford: Basil Blackwell
9. Bringsjord, S. 2001. In computation, parallel is nothing, physical everything. Minds and Machines 11: 95-99
10. Bringsjord, S. and H. Xiao. 2000. A refutation of Penrose's Gödelian case against artificial intelligence. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12: 307-29
11. Bringsjord, S. and M. Zenzen. 1997. Cognition is not computation: The argument from irreversibility. Synthese 113: 285-320
12. Copeland, J. 1998. Even Turing machines can compute uncomputable functions. In Unconventional Models of Computation, ed. J. Casti, 150-64. London: Springer-Verlag
13. Dickmann, M. Large Infinitary Languages. Amsterdam: North-Holland
14. Ebbhinghaus, H., J. Flum, and W. Thomas. 1984. Mathematical Logic. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag
15. Forster, T. Typescript. The significance of Yablo's paradox without self-reference. Available from http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk
16. Gold, M. 1965. Limiting recursion. Journal of Symbolic Logic 30: 28-47
17. Karp, C. 1964. Languages with Expressions of Infinite Length. Amsterdam: North-Holland
18. Keisler, H. 1971. Model Theory for Infinitary Logic. Amsterdam: North-Holland
19. Kugel, P. 1986. Thinking may be more than computing. Cognition 18: 128-49
20. Laraudogoitia, J. P. 2000. Priest on the paradox of the gods. Analysis 60: 152-55
21. Penrose, R. 1994. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press
22. Priest, G. 1997. Yablo's paradox. Analysis 57: 236-42
23. Priest, G. 1999. On a version of one of Zeno's paradoxes. Analysis 59: 1-2
24. Putnam, H. 1965. Trial and error predicates and a solution to a problem of Mostowski. Journal of Symbolic Logic 30: 49-57
25. Russell, B. 1915. Our Knowledge of the External World as a Field for Scientific Method in Philosophy. Chicago, IL: Open Court
26. Russell, B. 1936. The limits of empiricism. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 36: 131-50
27. Siegelmann, H. 1995. Computation beyond the Turing limit. Science 268: 545-48
28. Siegelmann, H. 1999. Neural Networks and Analog Computation: Beyond the Turing Limit. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser
29. Siegelmann, H. and E. Sontag. 1994. Analog computation via neural nets. Theoretical Computer Science. 131: 331-60
30. Sorensen, R. 1998. Yablo's paradox and kindred infinite liars. Mind 107: 137-55
31. Turing, A. 1939. Systems of logic based on ordinals. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (series 2) 45: 161-228
32. Weyl, H. 1949. Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
33. Yablo, S. 1993. Paradox without self-reference. Analysis 53: 252-53
34. Yablo, S. 2000. A reply to new Zeno. Analysis 60: 148-51