On Sun, Oct 2, 2011 at 4:16 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> 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.
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