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.


-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to