From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!pacbell.com!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Mar 24 09:57:13 EST 1992
Article 4592 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!pacbell.com!att!news.cs.indiana.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.010821.28207@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 92 01:08:21 GMT
References: <1992Mar18.045939.3084@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Mar18.095140.9984@husc3.harvard.edu> <45094@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 19

In article <45094@dime.cs.umass.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>length.  But it is clear from Putnam's description (p.124) that he is
>imagining that the I/O is not actually present, but rather talks of
>an automaton that behaves "as if" they were.

I don't see this in Putnam's discussion anywhere.  In fact, he points
out that there may be quite strong restrictions on what counts as
an input.  His "as if" point assumes that the inputs (and outputs)
are already there, and concerns the way we would describe the
internal workings of the machine.  I don't see anything that
corresponds to your "hallucinations".  I'm not sure that it
matters a lot in any case, but could you be more explicit in your
reference?

-- 
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."


