I don't think there is much in the way of "common sense" if you want
an explanation of consciousness from comp. I think it is fairly
non-intuitive. The mainstream account which holds both comp and
materialism doesn't address it. The only account I know of that
explains consciousness from comp is Bruno's - and that is probably the
polar opposite to "common sense"!
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that comp is almost true, except for when applied to consciousness
> itself, in which case it is exactly false. I wasn't asserting it so much as
> I was illustrating exactly why that is the case. Does anyone have any common
> sense analogy or story which makes sense of comp as a generator of
> On Monday, September 17, 2012 6:37:39 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>> On 9/17/2012 5:41 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> On 9/17/2012 1:20 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>> >>> Stephen - the Matrix video is a faithful interpretation of comp, but
>> >>> Craig's story is not, unless he includes the crucial narrative - that
>> >>> of the simulated Craig eating the simulated meal. I expect Craig to
>> >>> say that the simulated Craig, the one making the yummy noises, is a
>> >>> zombie, and has no actual experience or inner narrative. He is
>> >>> entitled of course to that position. He is just saying no to the
>> >>> doctor.
>> >>> Terren
>> >> Dear Terren,
>> >> You are completely missing his point. He is highlighting the fact
>> >> that
>> >> there is a difference that makes a difference between the case of "of
>> >> the
>> >> simulated Craig eating the simulated meal" and "of the "real" Craig
>> >> eating
>> >> the "real" meal". There has to be a "grundlagen" level at which there
>> >> is not
>> >> a "simulation", there has to be a "real thing" that the simulations are
>> >> some
>> >> deformed copy of. I have postulated, following an idea from Stephen
>> >> Woolfram, that a physical system (in its evolution) in the "real word"
>> >> *is*
>> >> the best possible "simulation" and thus it is literally the "real
>> >> thing"
>> >> that all images that we might have of it in our minds are mere
>> >> simulations.
>> >> Craig is diving deep into this idea and looking at it "from the
>> >> inside"
>> >> and reporting to us his observations.
>> > Craig is just asserting that comp is false. The Matrix video only
>> > makes sense if you assume comp. The fact that you called that video
>> > the "matrix version of Craig's story" was confusing to me because the
>> > two rest on different assumptions. The movie shows us the character
>> > eating and enjoying the simulated steak. In Craig's story he has no
>> > experience of it.
>> > If you assume comp then there is no "primary real" version of anything
>> > (by the movie graph argument). Real is only phenomenological, like a
>> > dream. You can never know, not even in principle, whether you are the
>> > "real" version, it doesn't even make sense to ask the question. Below
>> > the substitution level, there are an infinite ocean of universal
>> > machines that instantiate your current state.
>> > Terren
>> Hi Terren,
>> "Comp is false" is too strong. He is explaining how comp is
>> "incomplete". The movie graph argument is flawed.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> 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
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