[ExI] [extropy-chat] What should survive and why?

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On 03/05/07, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

Yes, I agree that observer-moments do not make much sense. The length
> of the interval is not sharply defined either, there are subconscious
> processes which are really quick, and higher-level processes (the sum
> of underwater activity) which can take their sweet time.


We could imagine splitting up the process of observation as finely as
physics will allow, halting and restarting a cognitive process in
mid-thought. A single observation could then be spread over multiple
physically separate implementations. Then there is the issue of where one
observation ends and another begins. Consider an interval t1t2t3, during
which a person observes a moving object. Say a single unit t is too short a
period for a perceptible change, so the object is perceived only after the
interval t1t2. But then what about the interval t2t3? It is long enough for
perception to occur, but that then means there is a difference between the
perception during t1t2 and the perception during t2t3, when we previously
said that t was too short an interval to perceive a change. The division
between the intervals t could coincide with physically separate
instantiations. So if intervals of consciousness can be divided up at all, I
think it is not unreasonable to divide them up arbitrarily, as the context
dictates.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20070503/df95f0fa/attachment.html>