On 24 Sep, 14:32, David Nyman <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/9/24 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>:
> >> If you don't think CTM solves the HP then presumably you don't hold
> >> that conscious states supervene on the physical tokens of particular
> >> computational types.
> > They might do inexplocably. But the significant point
> > is that nothing else solves the HP either,
> If you think they might do inexplicably, then presumably you don't
> hold that the merely functional association of conscious states with
> heterogeneous physical states counts as an adequate explanation.  So
> what have we been disagreeing about?  As to nothing else solving the
> HP, that has never been relevant to the discussion.

Why harp on the fact that CTM isn't physicalist enough, if you think
physicalism is equally sueless? After all, phsycialism is just PM
The difference is that the structure is finer-grained.
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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to