On 30 Sep 2011, at 17:26, benjayk wrote:
COMP is the attempt to solve the mind-body problem with basing
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
terms of numbers relations, and we can define number relations in
+,*,N. But what is N? It is 0 and all it's successors. But what is
are successors? They have to remain undefined. If we define 0 as a
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
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
meaning. But really, it doesn't. 0 just signifies the absence of
It might be intepreted like that. But that use extra-metaphysical
which makes sense if we count things, but as a foundation for a TOE,
just meaningless (absence of anything at all?), or could mean
absence of anything in particular). Successor signifies that there
more" of something, which makes sense with concrete object, but what
more of the "absence of something" (which could mean anything).
1 is the successor of 0. You are confusing the number 0 and its
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.
it's very foundation is undefined. Everything derived from it also is
undefined, that is, it is totally open to interpretation. We can
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-
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...
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
which essentially reveals its own emptiness. What can COMP possibly
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
level for COMP to have any meaning, and our inability to know any
substitution level should lead us to conclude that there probably is
substitution level, or it is undefined, which would just make sense,
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
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