Kelly wrote: > On Apr 26, 1:08 am, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> These are "edges" in time, i.e. a future boundary and a past boundary. >> If these two boundaries are different then we are not longer talking >> about a state, we're talking about an interval, furthermore an interval >> that has duration and direction. >> > > Uhhhhhhhhh....what??? > > I think you should re-read my post. I think you missed something. >
No, I think you're missing my point. Consider your analogy of fitting together images to make a complete picture. You present this as a spatial representation of the sequential flow of consciousness. Now suppose your spatial elements have zero extent - they are "spatial instants", i.e. points. What fits them together? > > >>> Well, I'm not sure how much of the brain's information is needed to >>> represent a particular state of consciousness. But I don't think that >>> it's a crucial question. >>> >> It's a crucial question if the answer is "more than what is in an >> instant of consciousness." >> > > Why is it a crucial question in that case? I don't see what you're > getting at. It appears to me that you are implicitly supposing that information in the brain (say in it's structure) can be associated with an instant of consciousness and hence allow it's position in the "complete picture" to be determined. But it would not be a legitimate move to use information that was not in the instant itself. And that's what I find implausible, that there is significant information content in a conscious interval of infinitesimal duration. Brent --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
