Brent Meeker writes:
> > > Assuming that consciousness supervenes on the physics, this follows > > just from the continuity of the physics. But it doesn't follow that > > there is some experience corresponding to 1msec of brain processing - it > > might be that "seeing the flash" spans some time interval.> > > > That's true, but it still allows that the process underpinning > > consciousness can be arbitrarily divided up. I think others on the list > > have used "observer moment" to mean these arbitrarily small time slices, > > even though you can't actually observe anything during one of them.> > > > Stathis Papaioannou> > OK, but that means "observer moments" are not fundamental and the "illusion" of their continuity may be provided by the continuity of their underpinning. But I don't see how a strictly stepwise discrete process as contemplated in the UD can provide that continuity. It was my understanding that it assumed consciousness could be provided by a series of disjoint states.> > Brent Meeker
It's an assumption of computationalism that the discrete computational steps will lead to continuity of consciousness. Moreover, it's an assumption of computationalism that a discontinuity in substrate of implementation (i.e. from brain to digital computer) will preserve continuity of consciousness.
Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
Get connected - Use your Hotmail address to sign into Windows Live Messenger now.
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Jan 28 2007 - 19:30:05 PST