On 19 Aug, 16:41, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote:
> I am sorry Peter, but CTM + PM just does not work, and it is a good
> news, because if we keep CTM, we get a sort of super generalization of
> Darwin idea that things evolve.
We still don't have a definite response from Peter as to whether "CTM
+ PM = true" is central to his argument. On the basis of some of the
things he's said in reply to me recently, I think it may not be. If
we could resolve this key point, perhaps it would cast fresh light on
some of the issues thrown up e.g. (BTW I'm not expecting answers to
these questions here and now):
1) What motivates the assumption of different theoretical postulates
of primitiveness, contingency and necessity?
2) How do explanations of physical and mental phenomena diverge on the
basis of these different assumptions?
3) What kind of non-computational theories of mind might be viable,
assuming "CTM + PM = false"?
4) And my original question: does the notion of "emulation =
substitution" have any force outside CTM? IOW if I believe I'm made
of primitive matter, what does this imply in terms of evaluating
proposals from the doctor?
....and so forth.
Anyway, it would be nice to get past an impasse which has plagued the
discussions interminably whilst continually failing to be resolved.
Just wondering, of course :-)
> read more »
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