Re: computationalism and supervenience

From: Bruno Marchal <>
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 11:14:38 +0200

Le 05-sept.-06, à 20:49, 1Z a écrit :

> That is the answer Stathis wants, but it doesn't work. Whether a
> computation
> is self-interpreting or not is itself a matter of interpretation, given
> his premises.
> He seems to need some sort of interpretation-independently
> self-interpreting system
> to start the ball rolling (= a Prime Mover).

It is here that theoretical computer science provides a solution.
It is hard to explain without digging more in the mathematical property
of the Fi and Wi, etc.
I am searching some ways to do that. It *is* counterituitive.
Note that this is explained in the second part of the SANE papers, and
in all details (albeit concisely) in the Elsevier paper.


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 Thu Sep 07 2006 - 05:16:59 PDT

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