On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> wrote: > On 23/04/2017 6:18 pm, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 AM, Bruce Kellett >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 23/04/2017 12:52 am, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 6:12 AM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 4/21/2017 3:42 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> John is accusing you of naive dualism. He says that you claim that >>>>>> there is some mysterious substance (he finally called it a "soul") >>>>>> that is not copied in your thought experiment. What I claim is this: >>>>>> under physicalist assumptions, everything was copied. The problem is >>>>>> that physicalism leads to a contradiction, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't agree that it leads to a contradiction. Can spell out what >>>>> that >>>>> contradiction is? >>>> >>>> Shortly (sorry for any lack of rigour): >>>> If you assume computationalism, the computation that is currently >>>> supporting your mind state can be repeated in time and space. Maybe >>>> your current computation happens in the original planet Earth but also >>>> in a Universal Dovetailer running on a Jupiter-sized computer in a >>>> far-away galaxy. Given a multiverse, it seems reasonable to assume >>>> that these repetitions are bound to happen (also with the simulation >>>> argument, etc.). And yet our mind states are experienced as unique. It >>>> follows that, given computationalism, mind cannot be spatially or >>>> temporally situated, thus cannot be physical. >>> >>> >>> This does not demonstrate any contradiction with physicalism. In fact, >>> you >>> examples are all completely consistent with the requirement that any >>> computation requires a physical substrate -- "a Universal Dovetailer >>> running >>> on a Jupiter-sized computer in a far-away galaxy" is a completely >>> physical >>> concept. >> >> Sure, how could I show a contradiction without assuming both >> computationalism and physicalism? >> >> Do you disagree that my argument shows that a computationalist mind >> cannot be spatially or temporally situated? > > Of course I disagree. Your argument requires that all the computations be > physically instantiated. SO even if there are many instantiations, each and > every one is spatially and temporally situated.
Yes, but there is no relationship between these instantiations and the properties of my mind. You can change when or where you run these computations and it doesn't matter. What you are proposing is a magic step: that a computationalism mind can only exist if the invocation is performed at least once (but it doesn't matter how many times) on some physical substrate (but it doesn't matter when or where). >> If you don't, do you disagree that something that is not spatially or >> temporally situated is incompatible with physicalism? > > > I certainly disagree because you have confused "having many locations" with > "having no location". No, you have confused "having many locations" from "being independent from location". > Many things are not physical, but are properties of, > or manifested by, physical objects or beings. If you start by assuming physicalism. If your position is "physicalism is obviously true, get over it", then there's no point in debating. > Values such as justice and > mercy are not physical, but are exhibited, or not, by physical beings. Yes, they are abstractions. Abstractions are constructs of the mind. We all agree that mind can conceive of non-physical things, but what is mind? If you already take it as self-evident that the mind is physical, then what are we discussing? >>> Even given computationalism -- the idea that you consciousness is a >>> computation -- there is no contradiction with physicalism. You have to >>> add >>> something else -- namely, hard mathematical platonism, the idea that all >>> computations exist in the abstract, in platonia, and do not require >>> physical >>> implementation. But that is merely the assumption that physicalism is >>> false. >>> So it may be the case that mathematical platonism does not require a >>> physical universe, but it does not contradict physicalism: it is >>> perfectly >>> possible that your consciousness is a computation, and that mathematical >>> platonism is true, but that there is still a primitive physical universe >>> and >>> that any actual computations require a physical substrate -- as JC keeps >>> insisting. >> >> The scenario you propose would require the following: >> >> - my mind supervenes on computation C; >> - my mind exists if computation C is performed by at least one >> physical substrate P; >> - if the computation C is performed by several physical substrates P1, >> P2, P3, nothing changes, my mind still exists as unique; >> >> Suppose one of the physical realities, say P1, is what you call >> primitive and C is running on P1. You would say I am experiencing the >> primitive universe. But then P2 (the giant Jupiter computer) also >> starts running the computation. In fact, at some point, the real earth >> is destroyed but P2 continues. >> >> So, if the physical substrate you propose exists, there is no way of >> knowing if that is the physical reality that my mind perceives. There >> is no way that I can access it or verify it's existence. > > > This seems to be nothing more than the universality of Turing computation -- > it is the same computation whatever computer it is run on. But that does not > prove that there is no computer. Your simulation ideas are just the > hypothesis that the program is more complicated than you first thought, And also that it doesn't matter when or where or how many times the computation is run on the "primary universe". So our reality is, for all intents and purposes, independent from the physical substrate -- except to the degree that it must run the computation at least once! > it > does not change the fact that your consciousness is a computation running on > a physical computer. Or many. Of infinite. But not zero. This is what you're proposing. > We never have access to "ultimate truth". The best we can ever achieve is a > model or theort=y that accords with every aspect of the reality we > experience. That is known as science. > >> In my view, >> what you are proposing is not different than positing that an >> invisible spaghetti monster lives in the orbit of Mars. I cannot prove >> that it's false, but it is not a scientific theory. >> >> JC's argument that he has never seen a computation run without a >> computational substrate is silly when assuming comp, because assuming >> comp JC never perceived *anything but* the inside of a computation. > > > But that does not prove that the computation does not run on a physical > computer. Indeed. It is also impossible to prove that an invisible dragon that cannot be touched, smelled or heard, does not live in my kitchen. > I take JC's point to be that your assumption of the primacy of the > abstract computation is unprovable. We at least have experience of physical > computers, and non of non-physical computers. I have experience of rocks, but not quanta. > (Whatever you say to the > contrary, our brain is a physical computer, and our thoughts supervene on > this brain.) Ok, so you are rejecting computationalism. Computationalism is the hypothesis that our mind supervenes on computations (sorry Bruno, it's easier to write for the purpose of this discussion :). You are declaring that mind supervene on the physical brain. I know of no proof on wether comp is true or not. Unless you have one, I think you should remain agnostic on this. Telmo. > Bruce > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
