----- Original Message -----
From: "Jesse Mazer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: RE: Bruno's argument
> Stathis Papaioannou:
>>Bruno Marchal writes:
> But just because you can map any physical activity to any computation with
> the right mapping function, that doesn't necessarily mean that some
> processes don't contribute more to the measure of certain observer-moments
> than others--Chalmers would say that there are "psychophysical laws"
> governing the relationship between physical processes and conscious
> experiences, and they might specify that a physical process has to meet
> certain criteria which a rock doesn't in order to qualify as an
> instantiation of a given mind.
"psycho-(as in human)physical (as humanly construed) for a rock? It is
entirely out of our simujlacron. We have a picture of the 'inanimate' which
is 'animate'ly drawn, including only what is our observable world. Were the
Papuas stupid for not obeying the Magna Charta? (and these both are still
I cannot forget the Volcan Mind-melt with a stone.
> Although there is some difficulty figuring
> out exactly what these criteria would be (matching counterfactuals, for
> example?), it doesn't seem obviously hopeless, which is why I'm not ready
> accept Bruno's movie-graph argument or Maudlin's Olympia argument.
Jesse, in agreement with you I ask:
Could we ever free our horizon from the "humanly possible" wall that blocks
even the possibility of thinking beyond?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at