On Feb 21, 4:16 pm, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > > it is important to conceive that comp might be false. > > Why? If it's false I don't see how there could be a way to prove it false,
Huh? Hardly anything is exactly computer-emulable. Flight simulators don't fly. The Computational Theory of X has been disproved (or never even entertained) for many values of X > and as we can not function unless we assume it's true WHAAAAT??? How did we function before the 20th century??? > > > Comp is an hypothesis concerning consciousness. Why should we must to > > assume it. > > Because it's important but nobody will ever be able to prove or disprove it > and most of all because nobody can function if they thought they were the > only conscious being in the universe. What the hell has solipsism got to do with CTM? > > > I argue that comp reduces the mind-body problem into a > > appearance-of-body problem in arithmetic. In a nutshell, comp seems to be > > incompatible with an already weak form of materialism (the belief in an > > ontological primitive matter). > > Maybe that's because consciousness is a adjective not a noun It isn;t -- 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.
