On 02 Oct 2011, at 16:21, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

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.

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 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