From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Apr  7 23:22:14 EDT 1992
Article 4715 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2425 comp.ai.philosophy:4715
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.094354.10243@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 14:43:50 GMT
References: <1992Mar24.051654.18747@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
 <1992Mar24.112548.10215@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar25.003556.6063@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 54
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Mar25.003556.6063@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes: 

>In article <1992Mar24.112548.10215@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes: 

MZ:
>>As evidenced by the above, you have failed to think the issue through.
>>Still, suppose that I grant you your point; then, as I've said earlier, all
>>that remains to be done is to interpret the states of Putnam's automaton as
>>ordered pairs <state, input> of a FSA (cf. the relevant comments on p.124);
>>follow this by running through enough input/state combinations to exhaust
>>the finite combinatorial possibilities afforded by the machine's table.
>>Finally, you do the mapping.  In this way, there will be no counterfactual
>>possibilities left unaccounted for.  Just string all possible traces
>>together in a sequential order.

DC:
>This appears to be a rerun of the argument in
><1992Mar18.095140.9984@husc3.harvard.edu>, which was refuted in
><1992Mar18.202206.10276@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>.

It is.  Your response never made it here; please repost.

MZ:
>>Given the original context of determining
>>the theoretical validity of functionalism, the requisite bound on input
>>length is easily obtained on the basis of temporal limitations on the
>>length of human life.

DC:
>I note that the requisite bound on input length is 1.  Arbitrarily
>long inputs are redundant here.  A construction only needs to satisfy
>strong conditionals of the form <state S1, input I> -> <state S2>, 
>for single inputs I.  If your construction satisfied those
>conditionals, which it doesn't, then the rest would fall out.

There are two separate issues here: the first one is whether there are any
well-defined conditionals to be satisfied (cf. the part of my post you
elided); the second one -- whether any conditionals get satisfied.  Perhaps
your earlier article, which I haven't seen, addresses the second point; the
above surely doesn't.

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: 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            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


