On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:42 PM, David Nyman <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > all that's really saying is that we have a subjective feeling of time and > space, but we already knew that. > > > > > It goes well beyond that, as the narrative is at pains to set out. Hoyle's > physicist protagonist invites the other main character to place himself in > the subjective position represented by any of the pigeon holes, in any > order. Then he asks him to explain what he thinks his subjective experience > would be. His response (the guy is very quick on the uptake) is that his > experience would appear to be perfectly normally sequenced from a > psycho-historical point of view, despite random ordering from an external > perspective. > As far as intelligence is concerned when reduced to their simplest form Hoyle's pigeon holes could just contain a bit of tape with either a 1 or a zero written on it. But you were talking about consciousness not intelligence , and in Hoyles analogy the pigeon holes corresponds to events in the real world, but what in the real world corresponds to the light that is sporadically shined on various pigeon holes from time to time? I don't think Hoyle had a n answer to that question. Also that light can't just read things it needs to be able to write things too because both intelligence and consciousness require memory; it's been a long time since I read the book but I think Hoyle was rather vague about that too. > > > only a single 1-view can possibly represent me *at that one time and that > one place*. I don't think it makes much sense to say consciousness has a place, nouns have a place, well some nouns do (the number eleven does not) but consciousness is not a noun. And as for time, if I could reverse time so that you could remember the future with great accuracy but could only make very fallible guesses about the past you would have no way of telling I had done anything at all. The same would be true if I reset your life so you were back in the third grade and you had to relive your entire life again up to today. Using Hoyle's analogy, the key ingredient to your individuality is not where the pigeon holes are , or when they are illuminated, it is in the sequence of on and off flashes. Yes there is only one such sequence but it can be implemented in many places and run many different times. That sequence no more has a time or a place than the number eleven does. > > here we have a single view representing my subjective situation at one > time and in one place. A difference which as you rightly say makes no > difference is generally agreed to be no difference, isn't that so? > Yes that is so, but there are circumstances where it could make a difference. For example, suppose there are 2 flashlights in perfect synchronization shining their light on the same sequence of pigeon holes at the same time , and then one of the flashlights is instantaneously destroyed. I maintain the subjective experience would not be effected, provided light correspond s to conscious attention. In this context when Hoyle said "light" I'm sure he didn't mean electromagnetic waves, so I wish Hoyle had explained what that light is and how it works. 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.
