On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 07:28:56PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> 
> On 17 Jun 2008, at 11:47, Russell Standish wrote:
> 
> >
> > Of course Stenger is fairly profoundly nonplatonist in his views. I
> > doubt he would accept COMP, for instance.
> 
> 
> 
> I am not sure.
> It would mean that he believes that brains (or whatever consciousness  
> supervenes on) are non Turing-Emulable infinite analog machine/ 
> entities. This would contradict his chapter three, where he argues  
> that the brain obeys "well known physical laws". All such known laws  
> are Turing emulable.

What I meant was I'm not sure sure he accepts "Arithmetical
Platonism", which is one of your founding principles of COMP. It is
possible to believe consciousness is Turing emulable without believing
actual Turing machines exist in the physical universe, for
instance. Think back to the fun debates we had with that ultrafinitist
Torgny!

Anyway, it is probably best to let him defend his position, rather
than putting words into his mouth.


-- 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics                              
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to