From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Mon Jan  6 10:29:56 EST 1992
Article 2429 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Ignore QM and be happy
Message-ID: <1991Dec28.222433.17716@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 28 Dec 91 22:24:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1991Dec28.222433.17716
References: <61056@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Dec25.043314.19060@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <61068@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 13

In article <61068@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>Such a refutation[*] should be independent of the means of simulation, yet
>you have been relying heavily on computability assumptions about neurons
>to box Searle's ears with the paradox of the heap.

Assumptions that Searle himself is happy enough to accept for the sake
of his argument -- see e.g. his treatment of the "brain simulator reply".

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


