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 email@example.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.