On 06 Dec 2009, at 20:35, soulcatcher☠ wrote:

>> Are you physicalist?
> I just don't know.


> All my everyday experience points towards physicalism: I'm a brain,
> embodied in a physical body, embedded in a physical environment and
> evolved via several billion year selection process.

Below, I see that you are open to the idea that you could be a  
conscious robot. But then you can understand that you are not your  
brain/robot's computer. Indeed, each morning the conscious robot could  
change the entirety of its hardware. So you ¨have* a brain. You are  
not a brain. If you are a conscious Robot you are already an  
immaterial living number (living relatively to a probable  
computational histories).

> All the
> constituents of my mind could be explained in the evolutionary terms
> as "devices" that promoted the survival of my ancestor's genes.

An explanation which I find plausible, but which has nothing to do  
with physicalism.

> From the other hand, all the scientific knowledge imo points towards
> some kind of "digital physics".

Here I disagree. Even for physicists it is a complex open problem. And  
then I have given a proof that if I am a machine, then physics cannot  
be entirely computational. I now that it is a bit amazing and  
counterintuitive, but then that is why I explain the UD argument.

> For example, it's much much easier to
> just accept modern high-energy physics as a elaborate pure
> mathematical theory than try to understand it in the everyday terms of
> "material world".

It is an advantage of comp, it solves the question of the amazing  
reliability of math in physics.

>> Have you read Everett? There are already physicists who describe  
>> "reality"
>> as a flux of information which differentiate in many histories,  
>> sometimes
>> recombining by amnesia, etc.
>> You may read the book by Russell Standish theory of Nothing.
>> The book Mind's I, ed. by Hofstadter and Dennett is a good  
>> introduction to
>> computationalism.
>> Stathis mentioned Parfit's "reasons and persons" recently on the  
>> FOR list,
>> where we discuss on similar "many-reality" conception of reality. I  
>> would
>> recommend it too. In particular you may read David Deutsch's book  
>> "the
>> fabric of Reality".
>> Gunther Greindl has put some more advanced references on the web  
>> page of the
>> list.
>> Are you aware of computer science and mathematical logic?
>> You could be interested by my own contribution, which I explain on  
>> this
>> list, see
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
> I didn't read Everett and Deutsch but I'm aware of MWI.
> I skimmed over Theory of Nothing some time ago and, to be honest, I
> didn't like to, partially due to Quantum Immortality thing - it was my
> first encounter with the subject and it seemed like a worst kind of
> unscientific wishful thinking.

I would call that "terrifying" thinking. There is no way out for  

> But maybe I should give it another,
> this time more serious try.
> I'll make an attempt to follow your UDA steps and can accept comp as a
> _hypothesis_, but now I'm highly skeptical about computationalism as a
> valid theory of consciousness.
> Every time I think about it I come to the "simulated thunderstorm is
> NOT a real thunderstorm" argument (I don't know the other name, for
> the first time I read about in some interview with Searle). It's easy
> for me to accept the possibility of conscious robot (I'm such a robot)
> but it's hard to accept the possibility of conscious "pure" (as in CS
> i.e. without side effects) computer program, as computationalism
> implies (if I understand it right).

I think that Jason did provide the correct answer. If you agree you  
are a conscious robot/Turing-machine (or just Robot, + Church thesis)  
then you know in advance that there is a level of description of [you  
+ the thunderstorm] such that you cannot distinguish the "real"  
thunderstorm from its simulation. So, from the point of view of the  
emulated "you" the simulated thunderstorm will seems as real as a real  
one, for at least a time, and the rest of the reasoning depends only  
on that.
Comp = "I am a conscious robot". The falsity of physicalism is an  
arithmetical consequence of comp.




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to