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

Stathis Papaioannou

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to