> No. But making it precise and searching consequences helps to avoid
> misunderstanding. The comp hyp is really a religious belief: it *is* a
> belief in the fact that you can be reincarnated through a digital
> reconstitution of yourself relatively to some hopefully stable set of
> computational histories (on which you can only bet). So the question is
> not "is comp true"? The question is really: "do you accept your
> daughter marries a computationalist".
Ok, I'm with you :-)
> And my point is only that IF comp is true then the mind body problem is
> reduced into a derivation of physics (the eventually stable physical
> beliefs) from ... addition and multiplication (and there is a gift: it
Why would this only be true in comp?
What I find strange is the following: why do people find "mind"
something strange - why not accept it as something fundamental like
electromagnetism or gravity? (Of course, it is not a force (or is it?))
Many people say a materialist/physicalist attitude fails to explain the
mind. I agree if one remains in a dualist view of the world, but not if
"mind" is accepted as something natural - something which occurs
automatically if certain organizational criteria are met.
> Yes indeed! But then how is it possible to convince someone who does
> not reason correctly, of the advantage of reasoning correctly?
> Answer: by letting him learn the consequences of reasoning incorrectly,
> if he can still learn after!
> Problem: about fundamental questions, this can take millennia, and more
Department of Philosophy of Science
University of Vienna
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