On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 3:01 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> It's a strange, almost paradoxical result but I think observer moments
>> can be sub-conscious. If we say the minimum duration of a conscious
>> moment is 100ms then 99ms and the remaining 1ms of this can occur at
>> different times, perhaps billions of years of real time apart, perhaps
>> simultaneously or in the reverse order. You would have the experience
>> provided only that the full 100ms even if broken up into infinitesimal
>> intervals occurs somewhere, sometime.
> That sounds like a temporal homunculus. :-)
> Note that on a nanosecond scale there is no "state of the brain".
> Relativity applies to brains too and so the time order of events on
> opposite sides of your head only defined to within about a nanosecond.
The brain is limited for technical reasons, relativity being the least
of them. It isn't possible to stop it for a microsecond and restart it
at exactly the same state. With a computer you can do this although
you are limited to discrete digital states: you can't save the state
as logic circuits are transitioning from 1 to 0. But this doesn't
change the argument that, to the extent that the physics allows it,
the machine states may be arbitrarily divided. It then becomes a
matter of definition whether we say the conscious states can also be
arbitrarily divided. If stream of consciousness A-B-C supervenes on
machine state a-b-c where A-B, B-C, A-B-C, but not A, B or C alone are
of sufficient duration to count as consciousness should we say the
observer moments are A-B, B-C and A-B-C, or should we say that the
observer moments are A, B, C? I think it's simpler to say that the
atomic observer moments are A, B, C even though individually they lack
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at