From: Nick Tarleton (nickptar@gmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 08 2008 - 19:10:52 MST
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 12:38 PM, Lee Corbin <lcorbin@rawbw.com> wrote:
> Stathis writes
>
> > As Nick commented, I don't see how the history of how the physical
> > states came about could have anything to do with the ensuing mental
> > states.
>
> Oh, I agree. It doesn't. Sorry if I gave a wrong impression.
>
> > How could you possibly know if your Monday and your Tuesday
> > were implemented on separate computers a zillion light years apart or
> > in neighbouring rooms?
>
> Right. You couldn't know. Grasping for where I think we're
> disagreeing, what I object to is the chopping up of the entire
> Monday/Tuesday affair into a sequence of states not causally
> connected. And that means locally, and locally computed.
>
> If Tuesday takes place in a galaxy far, far away, and the initial
> configuration of Tuesday arises by chance, say, (or from a
> record of a previous execution), then there is only an infinitesimal
> loss of consciousness: namely, the instant between Monday and
> Tuesday.
"Loss of consciousness" implies something the observer would notice.
I'm confused.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT