On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:37 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10/2/2013 7:03 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 01 Oct 2013, at 19:34, meekerdb wrote: >>> >>> On 10/1/2013 7:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: >>> >>> However, on reflection, this is not what one should deduce from the >>> logic as set out. The logical structure of each subjective moment is >>> defined as encoding its relative past and anticipated future states >>> (an assumption that seems consistent with our understanding of brain >>> function, for example). >>> >>> >>> But then it seems one needs the physical, or at least the subconscious. >>> If >>> one conceives a "subjective moment" as just what one is conscious of in >>> "a >>> moment" it doesn't encode very much of the past. And in the digital >>> simulation paradigm the computational state doesn't encode any of it. So >>> I >>> think each conscious "moment" must have considerable extent in (physical) >>> time so as to overlap and provide continuity. >>> >>> >>> But then comp is false, OK? As with comp the present first person moment >>> can >>> be encoded, and indeed sent on Mars, etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course physical time need not correspond in any simple way to >>> computational steps. >>> >>> >>> OK. With this remark, comp remains consistent, indeed. That last remark >>> is >>> quite interesting, and a key to grasp comp and its relation to physics. I >>> think. >> >> Could time arise from recursivity? A very caricatural example: >> >> f(x) = x :: f(x + 1) >> >> So f(0) would go through the steps: >> (0) >> (0 1) >> (0 1 2) >> ... >> >> If (in a caricatural way) we associated each step with a moment, each >> step would contain a memory of the past, although the function I wrote >> is just some static mathematical object I dug up from Platonia. >> Furthermore, these moments would appear to be relates in a causality >> sequence: (0) -> (0 1) -> (0 1 2) and so on. What do you think? > > > They form a sequence of states which overlap and so have an inherent order. > But that can't be the right model for conscious states because they don't > contain all past conscious states; in general their content is very sparse > relative memory.
Sure but it would be trivial to define some recursive function that generates a sequence of states with sparse or even distorted memories of previous states. The recursive function could be as complex as you like. Telmo. > Brent > > > -- > 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. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
