On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 2:14 PM Russell Standish <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 01:15:38PM +1000, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 25, 2019 at 1:01 PM Russell Standish <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> >     On Sat, Aug 24, 2019 at 07:34:26PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via
> Everything
> >     List wrote:
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > 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
> >     >
> >
> >     Yes - I know your argument. In the BIV scenario, the environment
> could
> >     be simulated. Basically Descartes' evil daemon (malin genie)
> >     scenario. Nothing about the observed physics (bodies and whatnot)
> >     exists in any fundamental sense.
> >
> >
> > Presumably the vat is a physical object that provides nutrients, power,
> etc to
> > the BIV. That does not count as disembodied in my book.
> >
>
> Neither the brain, nor the vat is a body. The body is actually
> simulated by the evil daemon, and doesn't exist ontologically. Hence
> disembodied.
>

That is a very narrow definition of a "body". A body is the corporeal thing
that, in this instance, "supports" the mind. So  the vat and its surrounds
are every much a body as the skull and its attachments are in the case of
the physical human body.

Now Brent makes good arguments (and I echo simular arguments in my
> book) that a body must exist phenomenally (ie exist as an experience
> of the mind), but nowhere does there appear to be a requirement for
> the body to exist ontologically (in the same reality as the brain and
> the vat in this example).
>

I agree with Brent's point. On the other hand, if you are talking about a
mind (and its associated body) existing entirely in a virtual reality, then
we have to consider what is the physical 'computer' that instantiates that
virtual reality.

This is all different from John Clark's argument that something must
> exist to breathe fire into all the computations. He calls that
> something "matter", and strongly disavows the ability of arithmetic to
> do this.


I am with John here. Talk of a "disembodied" mind (or calculation). is just
so much hot air. I ask for evidence of such things, and none has been
provided to date. "Minds" (or calculations) are the consequence of physical
operations.

Bruce


> Bruno Marchal claims the opposite - that arithmetic, or in
> fact any abstract system capable of universal computation, is
> sufficient for the job. To be quite frank, I'm a fence sitter in this
> debate, as I've yet to see any physically realisable experiment that
> can settle the matter.
>

-- 
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/CAFxXSLQdoDaKLhF1HMqvM7cbybqUAdaA0Vp0xyVznT95n2YHnw%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to