On 11 July 2014 00:54, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > As I understand the MGA it assumes physicalism and then purports to show > that computation still exists with minimal or zero physical activity - it > evaucates the physics and keeps the computation.
For heaven's sake, Brent! This is what you originally said to Liz. What you're referring to is Maudlin's argument. It's the *opposite* of my understanding of the MGA, which seeks to show how physical action can be preserved unchanged even in cases where the original "computational relations" have been completely disrupted. I spent several paragraphs describing this with additional examples. You then commented this with "I agree with all you wrote", which led to some further discussion based (as I thought) on this understanding. Your comment above now leaves me hopelessly confused. I would be grateful if you would review our recent discussion and clarify what you do or do not agree with in my analysis. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
