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]             
            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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to