Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: 1Z <>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:56:24 -0000

David Nyman wrote:
> Tom Caylor wrote:
> S_p
> > can be expressed by a finite number, since the substitution itself can
> > be expressed by a finite number (whatever is written on the tape/CD or
> > other storage/transmitting device).
> Does your 'interpretation' of 'Yes doctor' leave open all assumptions
> about actual *instantiation* of S_p? You refer above to the 'tape/CD or
> other storage/transmitting device'. Is an additional act of faith
> required such that we trust the doctor not merely to leave S_p to
> gather dust on a shelf? Or, if he does cause the instantiation of S_p
> (even assuming it to be equivalent to S_c) in terms of some
> unconstrained choice among arbitrarily many machine 'architectures'
> (electronic, hydraulic, mechanical, Platonic, you-name-it) I am to
> further trust that my experience will remain invariant to the actual
> physical behaviour thus enacted? Or is the assumption of YD within a
> 'comp' that additionally assumes AR+CT supposed to subsume all the
> above issues, and if so why?

Suppose you were faced with two Doctors: Dr 1 promises
to reproduce you approximately in a robotic body that can
interact with the environment. Dr 2 promises to
reproduce you exactly, and leave the resulting tape gathering dust...

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Mon Aug 21 2006 - 14:58:17 PDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST