2009/9/24 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> > > > > On 24 Sep, 16:16, "david.nyman" <david.ny...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 2009/9/24 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>: > > > > > Why harp on the fact that CTM isn't physicalist enough, if you think > > > physicalism is equally sueless? After all, phsycialism is just PM > > > +structure. > > > The difference is that the structure is finer-grained. > > > > Agreed. But the harping was motivated entirely by its relevance to > > the supervenience dispute within CTM. If CTM is a physical theory, it > > should be able to appeal directly and consistently to the low-level > > physical account; > > So you, and only you, say. > > No... Again I have to ask you what is the physical relata between executing a conscious program on a computer, an abaccus, with pen and paper, in my mind ? If you answer the abstract computation it's not an answer from your POV because as you keep saying *it doesn't exist*.
Quentin > >if it can't, we need another strategy to > > disambiguate its actual relation to the physical account. The latter > > conclusion is what motivates the reversal of matter and mathematics in > > comp. > > There is no ambiguity in the reduction of computation > to physics. The remaining problem is the HP. > > > -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
