Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Le 19-mars-06, à 14:09, Georges Quénot a écrit :
>> I am sorry. I don't see. What Comp can say about the relation
>> between first and third person concepts that could not be said
>> in a "simple" "mathematical-monism" context?
> But this just depend of your theory of mind.
> With the comp-or-weaker, we can translate the definition of "knower", 
> "observer", etc. (already existing in the literature and defended with 
> some unanimity by platonist minded researcher), and then do the 
> calculus.
> Comp is just my theory of mind.

That's fine.

> It is useful because it makes things 
> completely precise and testable.

For instance? About consciousness?

> What is yours?

Wow... I am not so sure I have a clear one.

I consider the possibility that mind emerges from matter
activity. I think that modern physics and the synthetic
theory of evolution provide a resonable (though partial)
account for the "technical" capabilities of the human
mind. What remains unclear to me is "consciousness".
The simplest explanation is that this is just the way
things appear to human organisms but I still find that
a bit short. Does Comp have more to say on this issue?


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to