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