Brent,

I try to single out where you depart from the comp hyp, to focus on the 
essential. I could add comments later on other paragraphs of your 
posts.

Le 03-déc.-08, à 19:22, Brent Meeker a écrit :

> But there is causality.  The sequence of events in the movie are 
> directly caused
> by the projector, but they have a causal linkage back to Alice and the 
> part of
> her environment that is captured in the movie.  I see no principled 
> reason to
> consider only the immediate cause and not refer back further in the 
> chain of
> causation.

If this were true, I don't see why I could say yes to a doctor for an 
artificial brain. I have to take account of the "traceability" of all 
part of the artificial brain. You have a problem with the "qua 
computatio" part of the MEC+MAT hypotheses, I think.
This is coherent with the fact that you have still some shyness with 
the step six, if I remember well. They will be opportunity to come 
back.

I have to go now.

Bruno

PS Abram. I think I will have to meditate a bit longer on your 
(difficult) post. You may have a point (hopefully only pedagogical :)


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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