On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> 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. 
>

This is exactly why Comp is misguided, as awareness is by definition not 
emulable in any way.

In order to even conceptualize 'emulation' there has to already be an a 
priori discernment between authenticity and inauthenticity, i.e. emulation 
requires the existence of something to emulate which is itself ultimately 
traceable back to something which is genuine and unique.

Comp bets on the Baudrillard simulacra - the copy without an original, 
beyond even the capacity to recover the deception. A copy through which no 
trace of an original can be accessed. 

This is indeed an interesting and powerful hypothesis, however it is 
ultimately inside out. You can't claim to be revealing the primacy of 
unreality while insisting on the same time of the reality of that 
revelation. In Comp, Comp itself is just another Bp, and the significance 
of whether it is Bp or Bp + p is really an obscure footnote.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/6Cfg7lK0nW0J.
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