# Re: COMP is empty(?)

```
On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote:```
```
```
```
```
COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing everything on
```computations.
```
```
```
This is not correct. Comp is the assumption that the brain functions without extra magic, or that the brain is just a natural machine, like the heart or the liver. It might be false, but still is a widespread belief among rationalist since many centuries, and there are no sign that it might be refuted.
```
```
Materialists are often using comp as a method to hide the mind-body problem. My own works shows that attempt to be incorrect, and I use comp to formulate precisely the mind body problem. Comp reduces indeed the mind-body problem to a purely mathematical body problem, and this makes comp a scientific (testable, refutable) hypothesis.
```

```
```But then one 3-thing remains uncomputable, and undefined,
```
namely the very foundation of computations. We can define computations in terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in terms of +,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is 0? What are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a natural
```number, natural number remains undefined. If we define 0 as having no
successor, successor remains undefined.
```
```
All theories are build on unprovable axioms. Just all theories.
Most scientific theories assumes the numbers, also.
```
But this makes not them undefinable. 0 can be defined as the least natural numbers, and in all models this defines it precisely.
```

```
```
```
But if the very foundation is undefined, it can mean anything, and anything
```derived from it can mean anything.
```
```
```
Then all the scientific endeavor is ruined, including the one done by the brains. This would mean that nothing can have any sense. This is an argument against all science, not just mechanism.
```

```
```One might argue that even though 0 and
```
successor can not be defined it is a specific thing that has a specific meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of something,
```
```
It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical assumptions.
```

```
which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE, it is just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean anything (the absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there is "one more" of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what is one
```more of the "absence of something" (which could mean anything).
```
```
```
1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its cardinal denotation.
```If you were true you could say that 2011 = 211.

```
```
So even if we assume that COMP is correct, it is essentially empty,
```
```
It is not empty to say "yes" to a doctor, for any operation proposed.

```
```because
it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is
```
undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can just name
```the "undefinedness" of 0 as "matter" or "consciousness",
```
```
No, we can't. or prove it. What you say here is meaningless.

```
I remind you that comp is the proposition that brain are sort of machines naturally emulating digital machine. This is accepted by all cogniyive scientist, and it makes sense. Indeed it might be false.
```

```
```and there we have
the very same mystery we wanted to explain.
```
```
```
No. It follows from comp that we have to derive physics from Number theory. This is a theorem, and not an assumption.
```

```
```Every computation could manifest
```
itself in arbitrary ways... COMP itself says that actual 1- experience is
```related to an "infinity" of computations.
```
```
Comp proves this, but does not assume this.

```
```That's even worse, so we have an
infinity of undefined computations. Every computation (or infinite
computations) can correspond to every (or none) experience, that is,
```
ultimately COMP says nothing about experience. If it would, it had to give a mapping of computation (/infinite computations) to experiences... But since
```experience is ultimately not divisible in chunks of concrete, seperate
experiences, this attempt is bound to fail.
```
```
```
On the contrary, comp maps the experience with the internal brain(s) processes. It just happens that, like QM confirmed already, the brain matter appears to be multiplied and distributed, in a mathematically precise way, in the dovetailing on all computations. The notion of universality behind the universal dovetailing is the only universality on which all mathematician agree, unlike set or categories, or any other notion of universality.
```

```
```
```
The only thing that COMP does is to propose a complicated thought construct which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly mean? For it to have any use we have to make a bet grounded on pure faith... So we
```could just as well believe in God,
```
```
```
Why not if you make it enough precise so that people can see the scientific problem. usually God is used as an empty (indeed) answer. But with comp, both comp and God is a question, not an answer.
```

```
```or  - better  -just take the stance of
```
observing whatever happens! Maybe that we have to bet on an substitution
```level for COMP to have any meaning, and our inability to know any
```
substitution level should lead us to conclude that there probably is no substitution level, or it is undefined, which would just make sense, given
```that apparently COMP is undefined in its very foundations.
```
```
```
So how would react if your daughter want to say yes to a digitalist doctor? Or what if your doctor says that this is the only chance for her to survive some disease?
```
```
You are using a machine to send this post, which would not even exist if comp did not make sense.
```
```
Also, what is your alternative to the comp theory? It can only be something making your body non turing emulable, which force you to negate all current theories.
```
```
Note that I am professionally completely agnostic on comp, I just show it making materialism contradictory with the idea that consciousness has a relation with the brain. The proof is constructive and show how we can test comp, and without QM, it would be already considered as refuted.
```
Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

--
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