On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> 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. > > > I think that you are crossing the limit of your pedagogical use of the > physical supervenience thesis. You might be led to a direct contradiction, > which might lead to a new proof of its inconsistency. > Consciousness cannot be associated with any particular implementation > (physical or not) of a computation. It is related to an infinity of > computations, structured by the self (or possible self-reference). Nevertheless, you talk about swapping your brain for a suitably designed computer and consciousness surviving teleportation and pauses/restarts of the computer. As a starting point, these ideas assume the physical supervenience thesis. -- 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 [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.
