On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux <[email protected]> wrote:
> The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical > supervenience, not that it is true. Yes sorry, "reject" was a poor choice of words. I meant argue from the comp position rather than the materialist one, and know what I'm talking about. > In the end by being forced to accept consciousness must supervene on the > movie + broken gate... If you believe it, then you've abandon > computationalism as a theory of the mind as the movie+broken gates is not a > computation... Or you can keep computationalism and abandon physical > supervenience.... QED Yes I realise that. The same applies to Maudlin. All I wanted to know at the moment was how the contradiction arises in the MGA. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
