On 17 Feb 2012, at 19:32, John Clark wrote:
I'm not sure who, the nested quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of
quotes have defeated me, but somebody wrote:
> Bruno has always said that COMP is a matter of theology (or
religion), that is, the provably unprovable,
Then insistence that "COMP" is untrue is just as religious as saying
"COMP" is true. Incidentally this list is the only place I've seen
the term "COMP" used, I'd just call it logic or even common sense.
Comp implies the consistency of non-comp. We just cannot know that,
but we can always extrapolate from evidences, at our own risk and peril.
COMP here is a weaker version of CTM (comp theory of mind) because it
makes precise the assumption of a level where we bet of our surviving
a digital substitution. You can say it is common sense, but I don't
count the number of person who say that non-comp is common sense.
We just don't know, and we can show that comp makes it impossible to
be known, even for those using daily classical teleportation. It is
provably personal opinion, and the comp ethics is that you have the
right to say "no" to the doctor.
> and I agree with this. However, let's try and see why that is and
why someone would take COMP as an assumption:
That's easy, everybody assumes it's true (except when they're
arguing philosophy on the internet) because nobody can function if
they thought every tree and rock and cadaver or even living person
was conscious all the time, and because nobody can function if they
thought they were the only conscious being in the universe.
Therefore everybody assumes (except when they're arguing philosophy
on the internet) that intelligent behavior implies intelligence and
intelligence implies consciousness. It's a axiom everybody and I do
mean everybody uses all the time, except when they're arguing
philosophy on the internet.
Not at all. We use partially comp when we accept an artificial
prothesis, and we will use comp the day we can build full artificial
bodies. You can argue that Nature has already bet on comp, when
building brains, and in that sense we use it implicitly, but here comp
is assumed.
Also, with comp, matter does not exist and physicalism is wrong, and
this will make even more people not believing in comp in the future,
because they believe religiously in a primary physical universe.
The comp story is only beginning. Don't confuse it with rationalism,
even if the argument of the non-comp people are rarely rational, this
does not mean that rational argument for non-comp cannot be given.
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
