Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Brent Meeker writes:
>>> I think it is one of the most profound things about consciousness that 
>>> observer moments don't
>>> *need* anything to connect them other than
>> their content. They are linked like the novels in a series, not like the
>> carriages of a train. It is not necessary that the individual novels be
>>> lined up specially on a shelf: as long as they have each been written and 
>>> exist somewhere in
>>> the world, the series exists.
> But the series exists, as a series, by virtue of the information in them.  
> They are like
> Barbour's
> time-capsules; each contains enough references and characters from the others 
> to allow them to be
> put into order.  It's not clear to me what duration "obserever moments" have 
> - but I don't think
> they are novel length.  I imagine them more like sentences (a complete 
> thought as my English
> teacher
> used to say), and sentences *don't* have enough information to allow them to 
> be reconstructed
> into
>> the novel they came from.
> A book is the analogy that came to mind, but there is an important difference 
> between this and
> conscious experience. Books, sentences, words may not need to be physically 
> collected together to
> make a coherent larger structure, but they do need to be somehow sorted in 
> the mind of an
> observer; otherwise, we could say that a dictionary contains every book ever 
> written or yet to be
> written. Moments of consciousness, on the other hand, by their nature contain 
> their own observer.

Even if they are not self-conscious?  If they are not reflective, as most 
aren't, then what is it 
about the "observer" that makes it *the same observer*?  You seem to be 
postulating a mystic dualism 
in which otherwise disjoint moments of consciousness are joined by having the 
same the 
Cartesian theater?

> That's why I suggest that OMs are not an adequate ontological basis for a 
> world model.  On the
> other
> hand, if we include brain processes, or more abstractly, subconscious 
> thoughts, then we would
> have
>> enough information to string them together.
> I know some people on this list have attempted world-building with OMs, but 
> my starting point is
> the less ambitious idea that consciousness can in principle extend across 
> time and space without
> being specially linked.

I'm not sure how to take that - a poetic metaphor?  Time and space are our 
inventions: part of our
model of the world.  In that model

> If a person's stream of consciousness were chopped up into seconds, minutes, 
> days or whatever,
> using whatever vehicle it takes to run a human mind, and these moments of 
> consciousness randomly
> dispersed throughout the multiverse, they would all connect up by virtue of 
> their information
> content. Do you disagree that it would in principle be possible?

Yes, I disagree.  At the level of minutes it would probably work; at the level 
of seconds, I'm
doubtful; at the level of milliseconds, I don't believe it.

Brent Meeker

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to