What are the common relevant physical details of all the proposed executing
2009/9/24 Flammarion <peterdjo...@yahoo.com>
> 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
> > > > > 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,
> > > > 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
> > 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.
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 email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at