Bruno wrote on November 14, 2005 3:02 PM
.................
> > this group, where I tried to explain its relevance. This is
> > because of the peculiar way you send emails
The above refers to Russell's emails and the fact that they
normally come as attachments, presumably for his own
good reasons. Each attachment has to be separately
opened.
> > that this 'strong
> > mechanistic' approach of Bruno really leaves a lot of
> > the real world outside its bailiwick.
>
> Could you elaborate just a little bit. I am not sure I understand.
Well you state elsewhere
> What I called "strong mechanism" in "mechanism and
> personal identity" is what I call "computationalism" today,
> or just comp. I have no idea if comp is true or false, but
> it is my working hypothesis. the advantage of that
> hypothesis is that we can reason about it and even be
> led to testable consequences.
So that suggests, on your own statement, that comp may
not be an accurate statement of the real world. Given
that, it is reasonable to suppose that a lot of the real
world may be outside its bailiwick. The less charitable
interpretation would be that a lot within its bailiwick is
wrong or incorrectly stated.
Of course there are a third and a fourth interpretation.
The third would be a combination of the first two and
the fourth that comp is correct as it is. But you have just
said that we can't assume that it is, and I think that is
correct. Bearing in mind the fact that the whole subject
of mind, brain and mechanism is in flux, that situation
is not surprising. Ultimately we may be led to category
theory for the mappings.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
To: "uv" <uv.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: "Everything-List List" <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 3:02 PM
Subject: Re: Question for Bruno
>
> Le 13-nov.-05, à 12:32, uv a écrit :
>
> > I had not read your email at the time of my email sent to
> > this group, where I tried to explain its relevance. This is
> > because of the peculiar way you send emails. I
> > mentioned in my email, the fact that this 'strong
> > mechanistic' approach of Bruno really leaves a lot of
> > the real world outside its bailiwick.
>
> Could you elaborate just a little bit. I am not sure I understand.
>
>
> > No harm in that
> > I suppose, as long as in the process he has somehow
> > defined 'which bits' are omitted. But due to the
> > reletively puny efforts of Solovay's theorem, I doubt
> > if he can.
>
> Why would I eliminate bits? Only aristotelian substances are really
> "eliminated"
> What do you mean by the last sentence?
>
> Perhaps this is related with some misunderstanding I am alluding to
in
> the preceding post?
>
> Bruno
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date:
11/11/05
>
Received on Tue Nov 15 2005 - 00:30:02 PST