Skip to main content

Philosopher J.R. Lucas Has Passed Away

J R Lucas | Faculty of Philosophy

John Randolph (JR) Lucas, pictured here, received his philosophical education at Oxford University in the 1950s. He was a student of R.M Hare, a central figure in mid 20th century debates over meta-ethics.

Lucas never took to meta-ethics himself, though. His interests were in applied (business) ethics, the philosophy of mathematics, and the philosophy of mind.

Probably the one contribution of Lucas' that will still draw the attention of the historians of philosophy in another century is his invocation of Godel's incompleteness theorem in the course of arguments about the human mind and artificial intelligence, which in turn inspired Douglas Hofstadter. Much of Godel, Escher, Bach was a reply to Lucas.

Here's a Lucas paper on point: http://www.leaderu.com/truth/2truth08.html

If I understand the argument, Lucas believed that humans will in principle always be able to outsmart computers (or "Turing machines") because such machines have limits that follow from the incompleteness theorem, and humans, not being Turing machines, do not.

The significance of the argument depends in large part on the definition of a Turing machine, which has a lot to do with the iterated use of on/off switches. Some of the most plausible ways forward on artificial intelligence have us going way beyond anything Alan Turing would recognize, even as to the basics, going beyond in particular the binary (0/1) operation. If present projections for quantum computing work out, Lucas' argument will seem quaint.

It will seem so, especially, to our future metallic overlords.

Still, the historians of philosophy will care, metallic though they may be. I am confident that it will still be seen as an important turn in conversations they will still be having.

Lucas passed away on April 5, at 90 years of age. Vale. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...

The Lyrics of "Live Like You Were Dying"

Back in 2004 Tim McGraw recorded the song "Live Like You were Dying." As a way of marking the one-decade anniversary of this song, I'd like to admit that a couple of the lines have confused me for years. I could use your help understanding them. In the first couple of verses, the song seems easy to follow. Two men are talking, and one tells the other about his diagnosis. The doctors have (recently? or a long time ago and mistakenly? that isn't clear) given him the news that he would die soon. "I spent most of the next days/Looking at the X-rays." Then we get a couple of lines about a man crossing items off of his bucket list. "I went sky diving, I went rocky mountain climbing, I went two point seven seconds on a bull named Fu Man Chu." Then the speaker -- presumably still the old man -- shifts to the more characterological consequences of the news. As he was doing those things, he found he was loving deeper and speaking sweeter, and givin...

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...