Dear Jonathan,

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jonathan Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Dualism

   The same kind of mutual constraint that exist between a
given physical object, say a IBM z990 or a 1972 Jaguar XKE or
the human Stephen Paul King, and the possible complete
descriptions of such. It is upon this distiction betwen
physical object and its representations, or equivalently,
between a complete description and its possible
implementations, that the duality that I argue for is based.
This is very different from the Cartesian duality of
"substances" (res extensa and res cognitas) that are seperate
and independent and yet mysteriously linked.

I'm not sure what a "complete description" is. Are we talking about a
dualism between, say, a perfect blueprint of a skyscraper and a skyscraper? I'm not sure I'd call that equation a dualism at all. I'd call it a category
error. A description of a falling skyscraper can not hurt you (unless you
are also a description ... I agree with Bruno here), whereas a falling
skyscraper can. But please elaborate.

Jonathan Colvin


Let me turn the question around a little. Are Information and the material substrate one and the same? If not, this is a dualism.


  • Re: Dualism Stephen Paul King

Reply via email to