On 07/02/11 15:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
You say "And the result is easy to describe: physics is not the
fundamental branch.". This is the leap of yours I never understand. Do
you posit that a mathematical universe with no physical content somehow
Comp makes precise that saying to be a machine is equivalent with
saying that there is a level of functional substitution where my
(first person) consciousness is invariant for a substitution made at
that level. Comp can show that we can never known our level of
substitution, and my reasoning works whatever I mean by my brain (it
could be the entire galaxy or the entire observable universe if
someone asks for it). CTM is vague on the level, and miss the point
that we cannot know it, if it exists.
Comp is also much more general than CTM, which relies usually on some
amount of neurophilosophy, or on representationalist theory of the
mind, and CTM is often criticized by 'externalist', like brent Meeker
for example. But comp is not annoyed by externalism, given that it
defines the (generalized) brain by the portion of universe you need,
like possibly the matrix above.
So comp is a very weak, and thus general, hypothesis. And the result
is easy to describe: physics is not the fundamental branch.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at