Hi Craig, 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
