From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!ogicse!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Mar 24 09:57:12 EST 1992
Article 4590 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:4590 sci.philosophy.tech:2350
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!ogicse!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Keywords: Putnam's rock theorem
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.192731.10005@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 92 00:27:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Mar18.192731.10005
References: <44993@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Mar17.222238.9969@husc3.harvard.edu> <45042@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 51
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <45042@dime.cs.umass.edu> 
orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:

>In article <1992Mar17.222238.9969@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes
>[in response to David Chalmers' critique of Putnam's rock theorem]:

MZ:
> >I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: whatever the laws that
> >guarantee the state-transitions of a FSA, the same laws guarantee the
> >state-transitions of a rock.  Since physical necessity is the same, so is
> >the counterfactual force.

JO'R:
>I don't see how this blunts the force of David Chalmers' point, a point
>which I misunderstood the first time around.  I think perhaps David
>should not phrase his objection in terms of "counterfactuals," as
>that term carries quite another connotation in the context of Putnam's book.
>	His point is that the rock 'implements' a particular trace of
>the FSA, a sequence of "table calls" as Putnam says.  Although Putnam
>does not make this clear in his proof, he is arranging for the rock
>to mirror a particluar sequence of state transitions that the FSA might
>go through during some "run."  He can do this because he initially
>assumes that the FSA has no inputs and no outputs.  So it only has only
>one possible trace when it is run.
>	He modifies this assumption after the proof, by saying that
>I/O can be handled by imagining an FSA that, roughly, hallucinates
>its input, and behaves as the original would if it were to receive
>such and such an input.  But now the rock states are fixed to a
>particular hallucinated input.  It is stretching the notion of
>"implementation" beyond anything reasonable to say that this rock
>implements the FSA:  rather it mirrors the trace of the FSA on a
>particular input.
>	By now I've put a lot of words in David Chalmer's mouth.  If
>this is not his objection, then consider it my objection.

Who was it that said that rocks act in virtual universes?  Just imagine an
FSA that hallucinates all of its possible inputs under a fixed length, and
behaves as the original would if it were to receive such and such an input.

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


