From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Apr  7 23:23:46 EDT 1992
Article 4877 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2499 comp.ai.philosophy:4877
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!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: <1992Apr2.012749.10596@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 2 Apr 92 06:27:48 GMT
References: <1992Mar31.070425.1633@csustan.csustan.edu> <1992Mar31.104855.10515@husc3.harvard.edu> <60507@aurs01.UUCP>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 53
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <60507@aurs01.UUCP> 
throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:

>> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)

MZ:
>> if you can formulate a theoretical distinction
>> between a material object "responding" to input by "producing" output, and
>> another material object "just sitting there", please let the world know
>> about it.  

WT:
>Simplicity itself.  An object can be said to produce output in a
>nontrivial sense if the map used to interpret output states does not
>depend upon time.  Similarly for inputs.  And, if relevant, (eg, in
>trying to distinguish functionalism from behaviorism) similarly for
>internal states.

Looks good.  How about an existence proof?  Start at the beginning.

MZ:
>> Note that such a distinction would depend on their identity
>> criteria.

WT:
>Exactly so.  And the requirement not to depend upon time is very modest
>indeed, yet seems to kill Putnam's line of reasoning quite dead.
>(Of course, the map can depend upon quantities that happen to vary 
>with time.  Or, for that matter on matters of time interval.  Just
>not time coordinates, which are arbitrary in the first place.)

You don't seem to have thought this through.  Start by individuating a
material object that persists through time.  Keep in mind the "ship of
Theseus" problem of loss and replacement of its material constituents.
Proceed to individuate inputs and outputs in a strict materialistic
framework.  Pay attention to the problems of context-dependence and
type-identity.  Then try telling Putnam that you can kill his line of
reasoning quite dead.

>Wayne Throop       ...!mcnc!aurgate!throop


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


