On 19 Aug 2009, at 22:26, Flammarion wrote:
>>
>> I understand both your discomfort with arithmetical realism and your
>> defence of PM, but this discussion hinges on "CTM +PM = true".
>> Couldn't we try to focus on the validity or otherwise of this claim?
>
> OK. It's invalid because you can't have computaiton with zero phyiscal
> activity.
This could be a critic to Maudlin's Olympia argument, it does not
apply to MGA. Precisely, it does not apply to MGA1+MGA2 (see the MGA
thread). MGA3 makes a link between Olympia and MGA, but is not needed.
MGA1+MGA2 shows that if we accept the physical supervenience thesis,
then we have to accept that consciousness supervenes "in real time" on
the movie of a computation, which, I think, is already ridiculous. In
MGA3 the stroboscope illustrates this, without reducing any physical
activity at all.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sat Aug 22 2009 - 09:33:28 PDT