On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 6:56 AM, David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I've often wondered whether Hoyle's heuristic could be a way of > short-cutting this dispute. Hoyle gives us a way to think about every > subjective moment > As a kid I remember reading Fred Hoyle's Novel " October the First Is Too Late " and in it he wrote about consciousness for about half a paragraph, is that what you're talking about? > > > Essentially the heuristic invites us to think of all subjective > experiences, aka observer moments, as a single logical serialisation in > which relative spatial and temporal orientation is internal to each moment. > Well yes, but all that's really saying is that we have a subjective feeling of time and space, but we already knew that. As I remember it Hoyle talked about events (that is to say a time and a place) being in pigeon holes in no particular order and consciousness is like a light flashing on a sequence of pigeon hole i n a very particular order. The set of pigeon holes you have to work with is the same as the set I have, the thing that makes you different than me is that the sequence of light flashes illuminating those pigeon holes is different for you and me. Or to put it another way , the difference between you and me is information. So if the information on how my mind operates is put into a computer and then my body is destroyed my consciousness does not stop, if two phonographs are synchronized and playing the same symphony and you destroy one machine, the music does not stop. The fundamental question you have to ask yourself is; are we, our subjective existence, more like bricks or symphonies? Actually Hoyle's analogy would have been better if he put thoughts in those pigeon holes rather than events because you don't have thoughts you are thoughts. > > each 1-view is occupied serially and exclusively by the single agent: > i.e. *at one time and in one place*. Hence in that sense only a single > 1-view can possibly represent me *at that one time and that one place*. > I see no reason that must me true. Suppose all your life you had 2 brains in your head not one, the 2 brains were identical and always received identical information from your senses so they always agreed on how to operate your body. So perfect was the agreement that neither brain suspected the existence of the other. And then one day one of those brains was instantaneously stopped, what would be the result? Obviously a outside observer would notice no change in your behavior so objectively there would be no difference, and no thoughts would be interrupted so there would be no subjective change either. If stopping that brain makes no objective difference and it makes no subjective difference then it's safe to say it just makes no difference. Also I don't think it makes much sense in saying your consciousness occupies a unique space. When you think about The Eiffel Tower is your subjectivity in France or is it in a bone box sitting on your shoulders? John K Clark -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
