2008/10/30 Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> The seven first steps of the UD Argument show this already indeed, if
> you accept some Occam Razor. The movie graph is a much subtle argument
> showing you don't need occam razor: not only a machine cannot
> distinguish real from virtual, but cannot distinguish real from
> arithmetical either. Many people does not know enough in philosophy of
> mind to understand why the movie graph argument is necessary to
> complete the proof, so I rarely insist. Maudlin's 1989 paper can be
> said answering to the "counterfactual- objection" against the MGA
> (Movie-Graph Argument).

Bruno, I'm not sure why you de-emphasise step 8 of the UDA. The other
steps are relatively straightforward and uncontroversial compared to
step 8. People who encounter the argument will naturally ask, how can
you have a computation without a computer or a mind without a brain? I
think I understand your reasoning (and Maudlin's) here, but it needs
to be spelled out if the UDA is not to be dismissed on the grounds
that it proves nothing about reality, assumed to be at the bottom
level comprised of hard physical objects.

Stathis Papaioannou

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 

Reply via email to