2009/8/19 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
>> Yes, of course, this is precisely my point, for heaven's sake. Here's
>> the proposal, in your own words: assuming physicalism "the class of
>> consciousness-causing processes might not coincide with any proper
>> subset of the class of computational processes". Physicalist theory
>> of mind urgently required. QED
> Why does it have to be spelt out? No-one in this discussion has
> spelt out a CMT, it is taken off the shelf.
It doesn't. It just has to be *amenable* of spelling out: i.e. if it
is a posteriori compressed - for example into 'computational' language
- then this demands that it be *capable* of prior justification by
rigorous spelling out in physical terms for every conceptual
reduction. MGA claims to show that this is impossible for the
conjunction of CTM and PM. Of course, CTM on the basis of
arithmetical realism is not spelled out either, but is immunised from
physical paraphrase by making no appeal to PM for justification.
I understand both your discomfort with arithmetical realism and your
defence of PM, but this discussion hinges on "CTM +PM = true".
Couldn't we try to focus on the validity or otherwise of this claim?
OTOH, if you don't wish necessarily to defend the validity of CTM +
PM, the discussion would then indeed appear to reduce
straightforwardly (if that's the mot juste) to an elucidation of what
is entailed by RITSIAR. Perhaps there's an opportunity here to clear
the board a bit?
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at