That is interesting, relating 1st person clocking behavior to "random
decay rates". We know that there is a "average" decay rate and we can
determine it rather accurately - just gather a huge pile
of stochastic decay data and grind it through the statistical algorithm.
The hard part is showing that the initial stochasticity (variability of
period) necessitates an internal self-modeling process ala consciousness.
'What it is like to be a neutron" does not seem to be very challenging for
a model of consciousness... Can Bruno's do that?
On Tuesday, April 9, 2013 8:57:11 AM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> If any particle were truly identical to another, then they could not decay
> at different rates. While we see this as "random" (aka spontaneous to our
> eyes), there is nothing to say that the duration of the life of the
> particle is not influenced by intentional dispositions. Particles may
> represent different intensities of 'will to continue' or expectation of
> persistence. In this sense, organic molecules could represent a Goldilocks
> range of time-entangled panpsychism which is particularly flexible and
> dynamic. Think of the lifetime of a molecular ensemble as the length of a
> word in a sentence as it relates to the possibilities of meaning. Too long
> and it becomes unwieldy, too brief and it becomes generic.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.