From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Thu Apr 16 11:33:56 EDT 1992
Article 5036 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:2526 comp.ai.philosophy:5036
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru.mt.luth.se!lunic!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: A rock implements every FSA
Message-ID: <6751@pkmab.se>
Date: 8 Apr 92 22:18:22 GMT
References: <1992Apr1.081958.10553@husc3.harvard.edu> <6741@pkmab.se> <1992Apr6.114955.10762@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 56

In article <1992Apr6.114955.10762@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <6741@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr1.081958.10553@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes: 
>
>MZ:
>>>I note that any description of Chalmers' wacky notion of implementation is
>>>conspicuously absent from the above.
>
>KE:
>>As if it was less wacky to hold the view that a rock counts as an
>>implementation of each and every FSA...
>
>Consider the notion of "reductio ad absurdum".

As far as I can see, the only thing that it reduces to absurdity is Putnam's
own notion of "implementation", which several people (including me, and your
primary target) have criticized over and over again. So what's the point?

(To summarize my own version of the criticism that I gave in another article:
Putnam's mapping of abstract FSA states onto a different (and random) physical
state for each input results in only an incomplete mapping of the FSA's
transition function onto the rock's physical transition function. It leaves
holes in the mapping of the transition function. Therefore, it is logically
false to claim that the rock is accurately described by the abstract FSA,
which I would presume should be a minimum requirement for any reasonable
notion of "implementation". - Your counterattack that there are problems in
reasoning about possible worlds seems totally beside the point; Putnam's
notion of "impementation" is no less flawed because of that. Did I mention
any possible worlds? I might even abstain from mentioning physical laws,
you know, but that might bring up some other bulky issues.)


>KE:
>>Whatever the correct notion of implementation may be, I think it should
>>be one that excludes arbitrary rocks, otherwise it simply is useless, and
>>definitely does not capture the thing we use this notion for.
>
>Agreed, but this doesn't exclude the possibility that the correct notion of
>implementation, like the related notion of interpretation, or the
>fundamental notion of reference, is simply unavailable to a run-of-the-mill
>functionalist.

But in what way does Putnam's argument help in demonstrating that point,
especially if the functionalist in question does not swallow Putnam's
notion of "implementation"?

> Chalmers may yet escape this quagmire,

You haven't even shown him to be IN any quagmire. You have still not
really explained why he should be concerned about your possible worlds
objection. You just keep repeating it with no additional material.

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


