From: Krekoski Ross (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 03 2008 - 18:46:20 MDT
ah, disregard that, I see that I'm arguing the same position as yours.
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:42 AM, Krekoski Ross <email@example.com>
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Krekoski Ross <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > 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 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:01:02 MDT