From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Tue Apr  7 23:22:57 EDT 1992
Article 4791 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2458 comp.ai.philosophy:4791
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!hri.com!noc.near.net!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: <45671@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 29 Mar 92 02:14:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.45671
References: <1992Mar25.003556.6063@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Mar25.094354.10243@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar26.034816.29572@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Mar28.100350.10367@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: 15

In article <1992Mar28.100350.10367@husc3.harvard.edu> 
	zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

[in response to David Chalmers]
 >If you truly believe yourself to be in possession of a workable
 >notion of implementation, please share it with your peers in a way that
 >would allow them to address its flaws.  For the third time, I ask that you
 >formally publish your answer to Putnam's argument, or cease claiming that
 >it has no force against functionalism.

One does not need to be in possession of a workable replacement theory
to have the "right" to criticize an argument.  Otherwise Putnam himself
would not have the right to criticize functionalism!  (That is, depending
on your estimate of his "Internal Realism"...)  And certainly demanding
that Usenet postings be publishable is unreasonably stringent.


