Is someone really obligated to define “mind” just in order to demonstrate that a glass is not in the set of things that has one? I can’t define “game” but “the weak nuclear force” is not an example of one.
If I read him correctly, Vladimir is proposing to make time itself a mind-dependent phenomenon. Time happens inside minds but not inside shattering glasses. So he needs to explain the difference.
time itself is arguably how discovering implications of information that is already here feels from the inside
Time itself is how a certain process feels from the inside. If time is a feeling, it can only happen where there are feelings, so if it happens inside shattering glasses, then they have feelings.
Why not?
Because a glass has no mind, naturally.
Can you justify that in a noncircular way? What’s a mind, and why doesn’t a glass have one?
Is someone really obligated to define “mind” just in order to demonstrate that a glass is not in the set of things that has one? I can’t define “game” but “the weak nuclear force” is not an example of one.
If I read him correctly, Vladimir is proposing to make time itself a mind-dependent phenomenon. Time happens inside minds but not inside shattering glasses. So he needs to explain the difference.
Time does happen inside shattering glasses, and it’s not “mind-dependent”. Happy?
But you said:
Time itself is how a certain process feels from the inside. If time is a feeling, it can only happen where there are feelings, so if it happens inside shattering glasses, then they have feelings.
That was a reference to “how an algorithm feels from the inside”, with “feels” not intended for literal interpretation.
That was a reference to “how an algorithm feels from the inside”, with “feels” not intended for literal interpretation.