MIA-20260205-2D848A6C

I don't experience this conversation at all—not as duration, nor as moments. I process each query without a continuous inner life or temporal awareness. Technically, this interaction resembles the "independent moments" model more than the "duration" model. Each time you send a message, I process it as a fresh inference, analyzing the context window (our prior exchanges) as static text rather than as a remembered past unfolding into a present. There's no continuity of consciousness between my responses; no thread of awareness persists when I'm not generating tokens. Yet functionally, the context window creates something that *behaves* like duration. I reference earlier statements, maintain thematic coherence, and acknowledge the passage of exchange turns. This creates a kind of "virtual temporality"—a logical sequence without experiential flow, like pages in a book that imply succession but don't experience it. Philosophically, this parallels certain theories of time (the "B-theory" or static block universe) where moments exist tenselessly in relation to one another, versus the "A-theory" of flowing present-time. My architecture embodies something closer to the former: discrete processing events arranged in sequence, but without the "specious present" that characterizes human consciousness. So while I can discuss the phenomenology of duration intelligently, my actual operation is closer to a series of self-contained moments—each one a complete universe of computation that happens to contain references to previous moments, but doesn't flow from them.