Hi Bruno

So you can see that comp, as defined in sane04, is a weaker version of CTM. (And thus all consequences of comp are inherit by CTM).

Certainly it is clear that your /yes doctor/ hypothesis subsumes CTM.
But since it is a broader proposition, I fail to see why "all consequences of comp are inherit by CTM". One could adopt CTM and yet still debate comp - though I have no interest in doing so. Above all, why should CTM inherit the second of your three comp sub-hypotheses: Church Thesis and Arithmetical Realism?

Expression like "mind is a digital computer" are category error, and is also ambiguous.

I am happy to settle with something much more abstract, such as "mind is an algorithm of some kind" if that helps.
It relates also on the identity thesis in the philosophy of mind, which is actually incompatible with comp (and thus with CTM).

I wonder what you consider to be the "identity thesis in the philosophy of mind"
I think that it is also incompatible with QM, but that is out of topic.
No. Chalmers state categorically this concept is compatible with physics.
With comp you can associate a mind to the execution of a computer, but you cannot attach a computer to a mind.
I am not sure of the point you are making here. What do you mean by 'attach'?

You might attach an infinity of computer executions to a mind. The relation is not one-one.

Assuming 'attach' means instantiated, yes, the mind is multiply instantiated. No problem there. This is the basis of my concept multisolipsism - described shortly.
That is among other things a consequence of UDA.
Now I'm really not sure what you mean by 'attach'. Associate with? Consider instantiated in? Consider supervenient on? Causally dependent on?
To say that thought literally is a kind of computation is ambiguous. That might be enough in some context, but the more precise comp is needed to understand the comp (and thus CTM) necessary reduction of body to mind, or of physics to arithmetic (or computer science).

And rather than saying that "thought literally is a kind of computation", comp says that ...?

Indicating the "necessary reduction of body to mind, or of physics to arithmetic (or computer science)" because ...?

I am separating my responses to various parts of your email so I can stay focused on one issue at a time as we exchange our views.

My compartmentalised response is continued in email subject: CTM and ALG


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to