On 21 Feb 2012, at 17:55, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/21/2012 8:16 AM, John Clark 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, and as we can not function unless we assume it's
true it would seem pointless to worry about it. I mean it's not as
if there were not other important things to think about.
I have the impression that John and Bruno are using two different
meanings of "comp".
I agree. I have no clue why and how John Clark relates ~comp with
Maybe they could explicate.
OK. Comp is the (theological) doctrine that if my brain is copy at
some level of description, and reconstituted with digital devices
equivalent with the elementary parts of my brain at that level, then
my consciousness still exist and remains unchanged.
It is a strong weakening of CTM, for it does not ask that the
elementary parts are the neurons (high level). It might be that the
correct level is the strings and branes (low level). Also, the brain
might be any portion of the physical universe, observable or not (even
the whole physical universe).
Contrarily to what Peter Jones (1Z) asserts frequently, we don't
suppose Platonism, nor immateriality, we just suppose that we can use
the excluded middle principle for the Sigma_1 arithmetical sentences.
Put in another way, we suppose that for all i and j, we have that
either phi_i(j) is defined or that it is not defined.
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