This is an extended draft version of a paper published in AGI 2012, which was shorter. It contains the Relativistic Theory of Mind. Please see Section 8 for details.http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.5379
There was a good reason I left it out, because it seemed incomplete. I didn't want it to sound like Tononi's pan-experientialism. However, there is a soft argument that relates it to the principle of separation, which might be interesting for philosophers of physics.
Regarding evil alien thought experiment: subconsciously I must have derived it from Descartes's evil demon:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
But I used it for a completely irreligious purpose here.
Also, please note that the relativistic theory of mind provides a simplest (if not simplest!) physical basis for pan-experientialism. So I think that theory makes a good model for discussing pan-experientialism. If experience is all around us, is merely the existence of entropy sufficient for experiential atoms, and does relativity explain the subjectivity of experience?
The journal version must cite Descartes. Maybe, I've now become a classical analytical philosopher. Kidding aside, I love thought experiments, I try to make good use of them. There are a couple more that should have gone into this paper.
There are some subtle problems with this paper, it all sounds too simple. But I counter this with our appeal to superstition. Why is it that we cannot start with the absolutely simplest analysis? I was half-dreaming just now that Strawson was basically right, and it required a bit of deep thinking to appreciate that. When we make Strawson plainer, we come to the unavoidable conclusion that some form of pan-experientialism (called "restricted" in the paper) must be true! The logic is undeniable.