On 02 Oct 2011, at 16:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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.
Yes.
As a starting point, these ideas
assume the physical supervenience thesis.
It does not. At the start it is neutral on this. A computationalist
practitioner (knowing UDA, for example) can associate his
consciousness with all the computations going through its state, and
believe that he will survive locally on the normal computations (the
usual "physical reality") only because all the pieces of matter used
by the doctors share his normal histories, and emulate the right
computation on the right level. But the consciousness is not
attributed to some physical happening hereby, it is attributed to the
infinitely many arithmetical relations defining his possible and most
probable histories.
Only in step 8 is the physical supervenience assumed, but only to get
the reductio ad absurdum.
There is no [consciousness] evolving in [time and space]. There is
only [consciousness of time and space], "evolving" (from the internal
indexical perspective), but relying and associated on infinities of
arithmetical relations (in the 3-view).
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
