= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Manfred comments on Does functionalism imply dualism? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (34)
So, for example, nothing is ever a bridge, because it's all just a collection of atoms, and there are no little "bridge" labels on the atoms?
Let's switch to the same thing, but with ethics. Can things be right or wrong without having little "right" and "wrong" tags on the atoms? Have you read Lukeprog's metaethics sequence so far? Can things have the property "Manfred would call this right" and "Manfred would call this wrong" without having little "Mwctr" and "Mwctw" tags on the atoms?