# MECHANISM, MENTAUSM, AND METAMATHEMATICS – BOOK REVIEW

Webb is mainly engaged in the creation of two claims : first, that the Hilbert formalist philosophy of mathematics is consistent with the limit theorems of Gödel and Church , and second, that the mechanistic theory of mind is enriched and strengthened by the main ideas of the theory of recursion theory and formal systems . Webb but also has a number of secondary considerations , most of which are historical . In the main historical parts of the book , he traces the development of these concepts and theories : the concept of a machine , the concept of a countable infinite set , the formalization of Euclidean geometry , formalist philosophy mathematician Hilbert first-order arithmetic and the theory of recursive functions . The book is a valuable contribution to the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of mind . The main arguments in favor of Webb claims are enlightening and convincing summaries of the technical results are clear and precise , and historical studies are often interesting and fruitful. It must be said, however, that a part of the philosophical sections suffer from incompleteness . For example , the argument for Webb confusing idea at first that melted mechanism ” I told him that the philosophy of nature .. is a kind of finitisin ” is much too short to convince . Again, since one of the main objectives of Webb is to address the mechanistic theory of mind is not disputed by the ideas of metamathematics , it seems the reader a comprehensive treatment of the main arguments against the mechanism based on the work of Gödel . it takes a number of steps to meet this obligation, but its analysis of the arguments of Lucas is short and precise , and he said nothing about an ingenious and provocative anti – mechanistic argument is due to Benacerrafs . When discussing the philosophy of mathematics Hilbert Webb says that Hilbert was much more interested in the expressive power of formal systems in the completeness and decidability , and also that he was never committed to the proposition that there can be complete and decidable formal systems fully arithmetic . If the interpretation of Webb is correct , given the ” lemma completeness ” of the expressibility of recursive functions that Gödel proved in the context of building his incompleteness theorems , it is more accurate to the work of Gödel as a contribution to Hilbert’s program to see if a refutation of the program or as an obstacle . In a closely related critical discussion Webb the widespread notion that Gödel’s theorems show that it is impossible to our intuitive notion of natural number in a formal record . In contrast to this view , Webb based on the following assumptions : first, as the incompleteness of arithmetic was reason to believe that it is impossible to introduce the concept of a natural number formalize it would be possible to the incompleteness of the be traced to the fact that the class of natural numbers as the universe of discourse and , second, whether the incompleteness of arithmetic can be attributed to the universe speech , then arithmetic any axiomatic theory with the same language world would be incomplete . With these assumptions in hand, Webb is able to say that proves not to be the fact that the various sub precisely the position – theories of arithmetic ( eg , ( lie axiomatic theory that die first axioms contains Peano axiom control and repeat for adding axioms , but no multiplication ) are completed . If we correctly interpret incompleteness , Webb insists , we must say that there is a kingdom of Facis with some complex numbers properties that can not be entered. in a formal system we have not say that it is impossible to catch . the numbers themselves As it is, this line of thinking assumes that it is possible to distinguish between ontology and ideology , a distinction and take on the properties of objects that make up the universe . Assumptions between the assumption of a universe of discourse Because work Kripke and Putnam , it now seems likely that Quine ‘s skepticism about this distinction can be answered , and I partly hat he eligible for dislinctiou discuss professional lo less of the ontology of empirical theories of low . In the opinion of the reviewer , but the answers Quine published not tend to show that it is possible to make in the context of the theories belonging to mathematics. Distinction As we noted earlier, Webb argues that the mechanistic theory of mind is compatible with Gödel theorems . But it also wants to establish a much stronger demand mechanism that protected and strengthened by the work of Gödel . In defending this claim , he begins to recall that certain categories of questions ( for example , the most general case of the decision problem for the predicate calculus ) are recursively unsolvable by us. trust then points out that if the arithmetic was complete , it would be possible to answer all questions. in each of these classes by an effective procedure It follows naturally that if arithmetic were completed, when the Church – Turing thesis is false . There should be effective procedures that can be modeled by a Turing machine or a recursive function . According to Webb , we can conclude that if arithmetic were complete , it would be possible for the human mind can Solving problems made machine . He expresses this conclusion by saying that the undecidable Gödel sentences are angels mechanism. Besides some concerns a mechanism based on the theorems of Gödel , Webb considers a number of anti – mechanistic arguments that can be attributed to other sources . He argues that most of these concerns can be resolved simply by using a rather abstract and advanced machine concept , but notes that many questions related to deep enough . Class deep concerns of the following three : First, while those systems that are at least as complex as their makers can produce the machines do not have this kind of creative force , secondly , human behavior different to the behavior of all machines in that it is too complicated to be predictable and , third, in contrast to the human being , which is capable of both the behavior filting following rules and regulations , the machines are not in a position to the following rules . Webb tries to answer all objections that deep right . His answers are interesting, but lack of space , it is impossible to discuss in this review.Mechanism has implications for the nature of human behavior , but it is mainly a doctrine of the mental processes that the behavior is generated . He says the perception , rational decision-making , construction of the theory , and all other cognitive mental processes are ultimately mechanical. On the surface , at least , ( C ) is very different : there seems to have no effect on the nature of mind . Moreover , while some philosophers have held that this appearance is misleading , and it is actually possible to infer mechanism ( C ) , there is a good reason to believe that their view is wrong . There is a good reason to believe that the proposition is logically possible that a machine that does not have the capacity for intelligent thought , but who is able to simulate all human behavior . Many of these reasons are given in a recent article by Ned Block.1

If ( M ) is true, then that Ian Carlstrom Lias said in interviews with the examiner and others , there would be a natural way to questions like these to answer : ” Is it a strip person potentially infinite in both directions , or only in a . ” ” What is the area of each square on the cone of persons “Where , however, the bond of a person ” is unlikely that it is possible to answer these questions : it is unlikely that those memories that are potentially infinite, and same token , it is unlikely that those parts that correspond to potentially endless bands by definition part of Turing machines. , it is natural to assume that there is an isomorphism between Universal Turing machines and couples made up of people and some very artificial environments endless, but it seems very extravagant to think that there is isomorphism between Universal Turing Machines and deemed outside these environments .Mechanistic the problems that attend ( M ) prevented by the adoption of an important part of the preferred version of Nelson mechanism , namely the claim that the human mind is a finite automaton.2 For finite automata can not endless belts . To be sure, it is sometimes said that this feature very finite automata prevents the use of appropriate models of people : who , because of their limited memories , they lack certain skills that people are known to possess . It is responsible , such as the finite automata are unable multiplication and are limited to regular languages , it is clear that man no problem multiplication and can generate complex languages such as English . In the opinion of the reviewer , but these objections can be attributed to one or more of the following sources : first, the arguments with a hidden effect assumption that there is no limit on the size of the human memory ol higher and secondly , the argument that trade on the vagueness and ambiguity ol phrases ” can produce . ” Although some historical accounts of Webb little philosophical value, and are in fact in place in a job that is essentially intended as a contribution to the philosophy , others are as philosophical reward . I book provides a wealth of valuable information about contirbutions Dedekind hazel and I , and there are some interesting asides on the ideas of figures such as Peirce , Skolem and Herbrand .