From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!bronze!chalmers Wed Dec 18 16:02:03 EST 1991
Article 2178 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2178 sci.philosophy.tech:1454
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Causes and Reasons
Message-ID: <1991Dec17.033923.29181@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <1991Dec16.002259.6621@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec16.080242.27055@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Dec16.082402.6631@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 91 03:39:23 GMT
Lines: 25

In article <1991Dec16.082402.6631@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>No: assuming supervenience, if you get the brain-state right, and you'll
>get some mental state right.  However, without type-identity, you can't
>have a nomological regularity between the two, and so would be unable to
>program the latter.  In other words, if the calculation of 7 + 5 = 12 is
>realized at the mental level, you won't succeed in programming it.

Assuming supervenience: to "program" a calculation of 7+5=12, you
simply find the relevant states in the supervenience base of a given
instance of that calculation, and duplicate them.  Anomalism is
irrelevant here.  I suggest going back and reading Davidson more
carefully.

>Implementation is indeterminate in every meaningful sense of the term.  A
>paper shredder can be said to implement a program by accepting a listing
>thereof;

If you think this is the case, then you do not understand the notion
of implementation.

-- 
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."


