On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:26, Flammarion wrote:

>>
>> 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?
>
> OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal
> activity.


This could be a critic to Maudlin's Olympia argument, it does not  
apply to MGA. Precisely, it does not apply to MGA1+MGA2 (see the MGA  
thread). MGA3 makes a link between Olympia and MGA, but is not needed.

MGA1+MGA2 shows that if we accept the physical supervenience thesis,  
then we have to accept that consciousness supervenes "in real time" on  
the movie of a computation, which, I think, is already ridiculous. In  
MGA3 the stroboscope illustrates this, without reducing any physical  
activity at all.

Bruno

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to