David Nyman wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > As for memory being encoded in or accessible to an OM, that is an > > unnecessary complication. > > As you said previously, the OM's are related solely by their information > > content. If the seconds > > of your life were sliced up, shuffled and thrown to the wind, (t1) 3:10:02 > > PM of 10/10/06 would > > still subjectively follow (t2) 3:10:01 PM of 10/10/06 even though there is > > no connection or "flow" > > of information between them. If you look at how t1 and t2 are generated, > > then yes, there is a > > connection - they both come out of your head - but once generated, they > > form a natural sequence > > which cannot be disrupted. > > But my point about the 'coherence' of consciousness is that it seems > (especially from what occurs, or fails to occur, when it deteriorates) > that complex representation and processing of *temporally extended* > information sequences (e.g. grasp of the entirety of the content and > meaning of a sentence or proposition) is necessary for one to > experience and act as a fully-functioning conscious individual. > Consequently, it seems to me that such processes must converge on OMs > in which all the necessary information is fully encoded and expressed > (which is essentially what Barbour seems to be claiming for his 'time > capsules' - e.g. his 'flight of the kingfisher' example). Without this, > the alternative seems to be that the individual random, wind-blown > seconds of your metaphor would need to be totalised in some additional > non-information-based manner in order to coordinate an ensemble of > informationally incomplete, discrete elements into coherent > experiences. AFAICS they only 'form a natural sequence' from the > quasi-objective perspective of our philosophical stance.
What is "our philosophical stance"? > And such > coordination is in any case what we were assuring Peter was both > unnecessary and impossible. What coordination? External time parameters, or internal time capsules? > The 'snapshot with memory' view of things is surely only viable if each > snapshot can be shown to be fully efficacious in reconstituting what we > do in fact experience - and this, short of magic, surely requires the > discrete presence within each snapshot of all the necessary process and > information. It seems to me that this might be a productive slant on > what work the brain might actually be doing in constructing the sort of > spatio-temporally dimensioned experiences we encounter. IOW, it isn't > just 'recording and replaying', but creating and continually updating a > coherent informational construct, centred on an embedded 'I', that > reads-out 'self-referentially' as a 4D world. A 4D block world? > Any given OM would > represent the state-of-update of this construct, with consequent full > access to its resources at that particular state-of-update. > > David > > > David Nyman writes: > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > (b) can't be right. However many copies of you there are, you only > > > > experience being one at > > > > a time. > > > > > > Stathis, I concur with this view, and for the reasons you give. > > > However, much as I hate to complicate this issue further, I wonder if > > > you have a view on the following. I mentioned to Peter the issue of the > > > destructive effect of loss of short-term memory on the coherence of > > > 'normal' conscious processes - e.g. forgetting the beginning of a > > > sentence before getting to the end of it - an affliction to which I'm > > > not entirely a stranger myself! From this, it seems to me that the > > > notion of a 'state of consciousness' as being discrete with an OM, or > > > 'time-capsule', might be overly simplistic, unless we conceive of the > > > necessary extent of memory as being entirely encoded in, and accessible > > > to, an individual OM - i.e. an OM can represent a 'fully-conscious > > > individual'. For that matter, what temporal duration is an OM supposed > > > to encompass - a 'Planck-length' instant; the entire 'specious present? > > > This whole issue seems to be under-defined, but the danger is that the > > > very notion of 'the present' might need to be treated as an emergent > > > from a coordinated ensemble, rather than being inherent in individual > > > OMs. But then what would coordinate them? > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > It's certainly possible to have a very fragmented stream of consciousness. > > While > > fortunately rare these days, the most extreme forms of disorganised > > schizophrenia > > are from the patient's point of view something like having random, > > disconnected thoughts > > and perceptions without even a sense that they belong to a single enduring > > individual to > > bind them together. > > > > I think of an OM as the shortest possible period of conscious experience, > > which would make > > its apparent duration many milliseconds. Much of the discussion in which > > the term OM is used > > could as easily (and less ambiguously) use observer-second or > > observer-minute without loss > > of the general point. Of course, hours of real time physical activity might > > have to occur for > > each subjective moment of consciousness, and those hours may be divided up > > into infinitesimals > > in a block universe, or whatever the underlying physics dictates. The OM > > concept has analogies > > with block universe models, but it is philosophically useful regardless of > > what the actual nature > > of time is. > > > > As for memory being encoded in or accessible to an OM, that is an > > unnecessary complication. > > As you said previously, the OM's are related solely by their information > > content. If the seconds > > of your life were sliced up, shuffled and thrown to the wind, (t1) 3:10:02 > > PM of 10/10/06 would > > still subjectively follow (t2) 3:10:01 PM of 10/10/06 even though there is > > no connection or "flow" > > of information between them. If you look at how t1 and t2 are generated, > > then yes, there is a > > connection - they both come out of your head - but once generated, they > > form a natural sequence > > which cannot be disrupted. > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail. > > http://ideas.live.com/programpage.aspx?versionId=5d21c51a-b161-4314-9b0e-4911fb2b2e6d --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
