The position you state is functionalism. COMP also assumes that the
physical state you speak of is emulable by a Turing machine.
On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 11:36:00AM -0700, George Levy wrote:
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > Hi Norman,
> >
> > Le 20-juin-06, à 04:04, Norman Samish a écrit :
> >
> >
> > I've endured this thread long enough! Let's get back to something
> > I can understand!
> >
>
> My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I do
> share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has to do with terminology.
> For example the term "COMP hypothesis" does not carry any information.
> Would it be more appropriate to rename it as an invariance, equivalence
> or conservation law? For example would it be appropriate to call it
> "invariance of consciousness with (change in physical) substrate?"
>
> George
>
>
>
--
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics 0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Australia http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
International prefix +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
