Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
> > Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > I don't know if block universe theories are true or not, but the
> > > subjective
> > > passage of time is not an argument against them. If mind is computation,
> > > do
> > > you believe that a conscious computation can tell if it is being run as a
> > > sequential
> > > series of steps or in parallel, without any external information?
> > If it is being run at all, it is dynamic, not static. Parallel
> > processes are still
> > processes.
> But the important point is that the temporal sequence does not itself make a
> to subjective experience.
We don't actually know that it is possible that
there might be some flicker effect.
> Would you say that it is in theory possible for the subjective
> passage of time to be as we know it if the blocks were not infinitesimal, but
> lasted for
> a second, so that the whole ensemble of blocks lasted for a second?
There is still duration within blocks
> Then what if you
> make the blocks shorter in duration and larger in number, progressively down
> infinitely many blocks of infinitesimal duration: is there room for dynamism
> in an
> infenitesimal interval?
There are such things as infintiessimal velocities...
> And note that the usual linear view of time is not so different
> from this: an infinite sequence of infinitesimals, which somehow add up to
> the effect
> of continuous activity.
> Stathis Papaioannou
> Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at