On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:47 AM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:

>> 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
>> content.
> I think we've discussed this before.  It you define them as A, B, C then the
> lack of content means they don't have inherent order; where as AB, BC,
> CD,... do have inherent order because they overlap.  I don't think this
> affects the argument except to note that OMs are not the same as
> computational states.

Do you think that if you insert pauses between a, b and c so that
there is no overlap you create a zombie?

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