On Mar 8, 11:10 am, Andrew Soltau <andrewsol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/03/11 19:24, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 06 Mar 2011, at 14:16, Andrew Soltau wrote:
> >> On 07/02/11 15:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>> 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 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 automatically computes?
> > Computations have been discovered by mathematicians, in mathematics.
> Yes but! I have no problem with the idea of a Platonic realm of
> mathematical structures simply existing, with or without the physical to
> instantiate them. I am aware this is a deep philosophical debate, but
> the Platonic concept seems somehow more straightforward than the
> physicalist concept.
Is it? If the Platonist supposes that there is some special mechanism
of contact between the Platonic and physical worlds that explains
mathematical knowledge, that is not straightforward. If there is no
such mechanism, then mathematical reasoning has to be explained
the way physicalists explain it, and the ontological posit of a
world is a redundant extravagance.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at