On 10/30/2013 3:24 PM, LizR wrote:
On 31 October 2013 10:50, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:On 10/30/2013 11:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:and that personal survival from moment to moment is exactly the same as survival during a duplication experiment. In comp, at least, a person is a series of discrete states, a "Capsule theory" of memory and identityI find that theory lacking. It is usually expressed as a sequence of "observer moments" with the implication that the moment consists of a state of consciousness and that this state belongs to sequences according to its inherent content. But how finely divided can these moments be? If they are very fine then they haven't enough content to provide specific linkage to other moments and a given OM will fit in infinitely many sequences, including circular ones - so the theory effectively fails to identify any person at all. So suppose the OM are 'longer'; then they are not 'moments' and they can be connected by overlapping rather than by some 'inherent' content. This is essentially Bertrand Russell's theory of time. Or suppose that even though they are short, so that there is no 'overlap', they have a lot of content that allows them to form specific enough sequences to be considered persons, e.g. memories. But that is inconsistent with them being *conscious* moments - what one is conscious of is (a) not momentary and (b) doesn't usually include conscious memories. This problem can be avoided by supposing that the OM is more than just the observer's conscious thought, but rather a 'capsule' as envisioned by Julian Barbour. But that effectively brings back physics and the brain as the extra information carried along with conscious thought.I think the point here is that IF consciousness is Turing-emulable, THEN it can be split up into discrete sequential states, which we can call OMs for convenience, even though they may in practice be far shorter than anything we'd recognise as a moment (e.g. they could be one Planck time long). Since comp assumes consciousness is TE, OMs must exist in comp. The question is whether this premise of comp is correct (at any level).
Yes, that's like the last I considered. There's a lot lower level under consciousness which I think corresponds to "physics" in some general sense as a layer between UD arithmetic and conscious thoughts.
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
