Jacques Mallah wrote:
> What do you mean by the "grandma sense"? Well, you'd better get
>technical now, since the problem is already here.
In cognitive science "grand mother psychology" is synonymous with
"folk psychology". It admits explanations like "Claude takes that
long trip by train because he fears the plane", or "Hamlet did
not kill himself because he was afraid of waking up in a more
>>Comp just means there is a level of description of "yourself"
>>such that you survive a purely functionnal substitution
>>made at that level.
>That's meaningless. According to your definition, if you were
>to see a Medusa and turn to stone, "comp" will say you survive,
>since I could point to the stone and say "Yep, that's Bruno".
This shows two things: 1) the poor idea you have of other people.
2) that you have not grasped comp.
"1)" and "2)" are linked to your inability to distinguish first
and third person, imco (in my current opinion).
>This question  is meaningless without a definition of "you".
I agree that "you" certainly acquire new meaning throughout the
UDA thought experiment, but it is
not necessary to define it precisely for understanding the
It is only necessary to define it for the extraction of physics
per se. Definition are provided in the technical part where
I start the derivation of physics.
>That is somewhat different (regarding implementations) because making
>measurement in QM is (ironically?) a measure-conserving process, while
>duplication is not. But again, you need a definition of yourself.
Measurement in QM is a measure-conserving process, yes, but only
from a 3-view. Duplication (dually) is measure-preserving from
the 1-view. And then what? Remember also that with comp we must
deduce QM from comp. That duality is part of the step.
How can I explain that to you if you fail to appreciate
the 1-3 difference ...