On 17 Oct 2012, at 02:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is the inability of comp to solve the arithmetic body problem that is its Achilles heel.


No. It is the strongest point of comp. It does solve it constructively, so it makes comp testable and/or our simulation level measurable.

You can see it in another way, comp explains how and where the laws of physics, and psychology, come from, and with the whole consciousness/ matter coupling. It does not solve the problem because the math are hard, only. Then the logic of observability, perhaps in a toy case, are already given and tested.

That there is a body problem is the interesting thing, imo.

The other theories assume the body, and the mind, and some relation shown incompatible with comp.

Comp, as such, is not an explanation. Just a frame where we can formulate the problem mathematically, and that is the main reason to study it, even if false. In fact, you need to study to comp to develop an authentic non-comp theory.

Comp is not an explanation per se, neither of the mind nor of the body. The explanation is in the reasoning and the math. Comp itself is just the bet that we are Turing emulable at *some* level.

Bruno




--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to