On 24 Sep, 17:34, Quentin Anciaux <allco...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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*.

It doesn't exist *independently*. Abstraction is a way of looking
at things in which irrelevant details are suppressed. By suppressing
irrelevant detials I can find an isomorphism between a TTL NAND
gate and  a CMOS NAND gate. etc.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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