On 5/18/2011 7:51 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
The other theory that Stathis is explicating takes OM's to be atomic and
discrete. In that case they would have to be strung together by some
internal reference, one to another. I don't think that's a viable theory
since in order to make them atomic, they must have only small amounts of
information - when I have a thought it doesn't necessarily include any
memory of or reference to previous thoughts. It is also difficult to see
how the empirical experience of time can be accounted for in this theory.
The OM's are just moments of subjective experience. They are
continuous rather than discrete, since they can be arbitrarily
divided. I am having a thought right now, but I can't say with
certainty when the thought started.
Which is what makes the term "moment" misleading. It implies
arbitrarily short duration; which I think is impossible. Digital
computational states have no duration, but it doesn't follow that the
computation corresponding to an experience does not have duration in the
sense of extending over many states.
It may have started a nanosecond
ago, even though I remember starting to count up from zero and am now
at the number ten. That is, I am at the number ten but it may only be
the last part, the "n" of the ten that I have actually thought; it's
only a ten when I look back and have the false memory of counting.
Isn't that what Bruno calls "last Tuesdayims"? If OMs are continuous
(or overlap) then that would provide a sequence and at least an implicit
When I have a small thought it doesn't necessarily include memories of
previous thoughts, and certainly not of my whole past life. But if
that presented a problem for sequencing of disjointedly generated OM's
it would present the same problem for a stream of consciousness
generated by a normally functioning brain. If I have a sufficiently
vague moment I may not, in fact, be aware of where, when or even who I
am. When I snap out of it, I recall the vagueness, and I recall that
it happened after I had a cup of coffee and before I stood up to go
for a walk. But the same sequencing would have happened if the coffee,
the vagueness and the walk had all been generated in a disjointed
manner, and there is nothing in the experience which can indicate to
me that this is not in fact what happened.
But there is much in other experiences that indicate it did not happen
that way. Are you saying you have no theory of the world and OMs, but
only immediate experience which could be an illusion.
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
For more options, visit this group at