On 8/24/2019 6:31 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 10:06:38AM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 9:45 AM Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 05:18:47PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
>
> >> OK so 0=1, that's fine.
>
> > No, that is not fine. If 0=1, pigs have wings.
>
>
> Yes but that's OK too, if nothing physical exists then pigs and wings
can't
> cause problems because they don't exist. And there are no minds that
might be
> upset by paradoxes.
>
That's kind of the point, though. Minds are nonphysical things, and
there is no apriori reason why physical things need to exist for minds
to exist.
You have evidence for disembodied minds?
That's not an apriori reason. Assuming you're in principle OK with the
concept of a brain in a vat (which is a disembodied mind), then the
you too do not have an apriori reason for the existence of physical
things.
I don't see that a brain in a vat counts as a disembodied mind. Do you
mean a brain that has no environment to perceive or act on? I would
deny that such an isolated brain instantiates a mind. On the other
hand, if the brain has sensors and actuators operating, say a Mars
Rover, then it isn't disembodied.
Brent
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3b7f5826-7e0d-0d10-69d1-e45a5871fb38%40verizon.net.
