On Sep 19, 2:23 am, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 Schmidhuber and me do agree on comp (100%
> agreement: we have the same hypothesis). And relatively to the comp hyp
> and the importance of the universal machine Schmidhuber and me are much
> closer than with Tegmark whi is just very naïve about notion of
> mathematical reality.

*sigh*.  I of course, don't even agree with comp.  One day when I'm
better educated, I'm going to have to come back and teach both you,
Schmidhuber and Tegmark a lesson ;)

Now the problem is that, unlike many people in
> this list, Schmidhuber does not address neither the mind body problem
> nor the 1-3 person distiinction, and the relativity of states which
> derives from that distinction. This forces him to literally defend the
> idea that randomness in nature never really exist, which is hard to
> justify in front of the physical branch of history we are living. This
> does not makes his work wrong, but at least incomplete (and then he
> should use Bennett notion of depth for the cosmological/geographical
> aspect (like I do in Conscience et mécanisme: using just Kolmogorov is
> not enough, but here I am going out topic.

You should think carefully about the distinctions you just mentioned
(1st-3rd person distinction) and mind-body problem, because it seems
to me that the reality of these distinctions is precisely what is at
odds with comp.

I've talked often about 'the three types of properties' (for my
property dualism) : Mathematical, Teleological and Physical.  These
three properties are based on three different kinds of distinction:

Mathematics:  The distinction is *model/reality* (or mind-body,
information, concept).
Teleology:         The distinction is *observer/observerd* (self-other
or 1st person/3rd person, intention)
Physics:         The distinction is  *here/there* (space, geometry).

These are simply three  incommensurable types of distinction.  You
(believers in comp) can try to derieve the observer/observed and here/
there distinctions from the model/reality distinction all you want,
you just won't succeed.  Nor will materialists ever succeed in
extracting a model/reality and observer/observed distinction from a
here/there distinction.

That's why both materialism *and* comp must fail.

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

Reply via email to