If you look at the structure and relationships of maths, it's all rather an
incestuous family tree anyway. You can get from any one point to another if
you try hard enough. It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon. Now think of any
physical system embedded in the maths. It's easy enough to get to other
physical systems, or to other mathematical objects, and eventually to any
physicality you want. Just consider that it's completely irrelevant whether
you start off with the platonic maths world or the physical world.

If this seems unclear or silly, well, I am very drunk....

- Did you ever hear of "The Seattle Seven"?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.

2008/11/16 Kory Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> On Nov 15, 2008, at 5:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > But if any computation can be mapped onto any physical state, then
> > every computation can be mapped onto one physical state; and why not
> > the null state?
> I guess I don't really have a clear picture of why the fact that any
> computation can be mapped onto a physical state should lead to the
> belief that (say) those mappings somehow support consciousnesses. I'm
> not very comfortable with the idea that a stone implements all
> computations. It may in fact be the case that those views are
> functionally equivalent to my suggestion that mathematical facts of
> the matter play the role that physical existence is supposed to play
> for the materialist, but I'm sticking with the latter formulation,
> because that's the one I actually understand.
> -- Kory
> >

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