Why we shouldn't fault Lucas and Penrose for continuing to believe in the Goedelian argument against computationalism

Abstract

The only fault we can fairly lay at Lucas' and Penrose's doors, for continuing to believe in the essential soundness of the Goedelian argument, is their naive faith in, first, non-verifiable assertions in standard expositions of classical theory, and, second, in Goedel's unvalidated interpretation of his own formal reasoning. We show why their faith is misplaced in both instances.