From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Tue Apr  7 23:23:35 EDT 1992
Article 4858 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2487 comp.ai.philosophy:4858
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!ulowell!m2c!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Message-ID: <45844@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 1 Apr 92 02:13:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.45844
References: <1992Mar29.003736.25807@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Mar29.144854.10432@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar30.064140.8996@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Mar30.231418.10488@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Followup-To: sci.philosophy.tech
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 22

In article <1992Mar30.231418.10488@husc3.harvard.edu> 
	zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>   ..., and printing and erasing what it is 
>   supposed to print and erase when it is in a given state and scanning 
>   a given symbol)
>
>Now, if the last anaphoric pronoun were meant to refer to the machine with
>description D, the theorem proved earlier would have nothing to do with
>this machine.  Since I know Putnam not to be an idiot, I concluded that it
>referred to the object being modelled, and the machine with description D
>was meant to satisfy the theorem's constraints.  

	This is exactly how I interpreted it upon first reading, mentioning
in an old post that D acts as if it "hallucinated" the input.  But David
Chalmers questioned my interpretation, and after reading it several times
now, I think that Putnam means D to have I/O that mirrors S's I/O.  I hesitate
to take sides in this increasingly vitriolic exchange, but I think David
is right on this point.  But you are right in that the theorem has nothing
to do with D!
	Only one point have we collectively established beyond a shadow
of a doubt:  the "Discussion" in this Appendix is very poorly written!


