From: Krekoski Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 03 2008 - 18:42:32 MDT
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Krekoski Ross <email@example.com>
> This is essentially what I was getting at in the previous email: how do we
> know that perception of time is not directly a consequence of the amount of
> time it takes for a signal to propagate across our cognitive apparatus? Or
> related to the frequency or 'refresh rate', so to speak, of neural signals?
> When I said 'slowed down' I meant literally slowed down. To a brain larger
> than 30,000km operating at c, the subjective experience may be the same, the
> external world may simply seem to be moving faster than we subjectively
> perceive it to be: if it observed us, whats to say that to it we wouldnt
> just be zipping around at faster speeds. Its as reasonable a speculation as
> saying that things outside of 30,000km feel external.
I'd also just add that even a brain larger than 30,000km could have some
aspects of its function modularized, and have these be autonomous, i.e.
outside of conscious control. The same thing happens with us: our corneal
reflex for example is significantly faster than would be possible if it were
under conscious control.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 18 2013 - 04:01:01 MDT