Le 05-juil.-06, à 20:36, George Levy a écrit :
> My background is more engineering and physics than mathematics and I
> do share some of Norman misgivings. Some of it has to do with
> terminology. For example the term "COMP hypothesis" does not carry any
> information.
One of my old name for it was "digital mechanism hypothesis"
> Would it be more appropriate to rename it as an invariance,
> equivalence or conservation law? For example would it be appropriate
> to call it "invariance of consciousness with (change in physical)
> substrate?"
It is more the assumption that there is a level of description of
myself such that my consciousness is indeed invariant for functional
digital substitution made at that level.
You can invoke "physical" but then you must make the proof a bit
longer. This is due to the fact that the UDA put doubt on the very
meaning of the word physical, so you need to justify that the use of
"physical" is harmless in the definition of comp.
Bruno
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.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jul 06 2006 - 10:46:23 PDT