Re: Dualism

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:57:20 -0400

Dear Jonathan,

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jonathan Colvin" <jcolvin.domain.name.hidden>
To: "'Stephen Paul King'" <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>;
<everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 9:15 PM
Subject: RE: Dualism
snip
>> [SPK]
>>
>> The same kind of mutual constraint that exist between a
>>given physical object, say a IBM z990 or a 1972 Jaguar XKE or
>>the human Stephen Paul King, and the possible complete
>>descriptions of such. It is upon this distiction betwen
>>physical object and its representations, or equivalently,
>>between a complete description and its possible
>>implementations, that the duality that I argue for is based.
>>This is very different from the Cartesian duality of
>>"substances" (res extensa and res cognitas) that are seperate
>>and independent and yet mysteriously linked.
>
> I'm not sure what a "complete description" is. Are we talking about a
> dualism between, say, a perfect blueprint of a skyscraper and a
> skyscraper?
> I'm not sure I'd call that equation a dualism at all. I'd call it a
> category
> error. A description of a falling skyscraper can not hurt you (unless you
> are also a description ... I agree with Bruno here), whereas a falling
> skyscraper can. But please elaborate.
>
> Jonathan Colvin

[SPK]

    Let me turn the question around a little. Are Information and the
material substrate one and the same? If not, this is a dualism.

Stephen
Received on Thu Jun 16 2005 - 21:58:35 PDT