From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!torn.onet.on.ca!watserv1!watmath!xenitec!uunet.ca!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Sun May 31 19:04:29 EDT 1992
Article 5942 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!torn.onet.on.ca!watserv1!watmath!xenitec!uunet.ca!uunet!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: figure/grounding
Message-ID: <1992May27.164400.18066@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Keywords: mind matter quantum
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
References: <l2516pINNmci@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <1992May27.122822.18483@cs.ucf.edu>
Date: Wed, 27 May 1992 16:44:00 GMT
Lines: 85

In article <1992May27.122822.18483@cs.ucf.edu> clarke@acme.ucf.edu
(Thomas Clarke) writes:
[...]

>Symbols are linguistic/philosophical.  The current discusion about 
>grounding etc. would be just as meaningful if quantum mechanics had
>not been discovered (invented for non-idealists) and the point at 
>issue was the possible consciousness of Babbage's latest engine.

which should be a strong hint that QM has nothing to do with the
issue.


>
>As I am fond of pointing out, the philosophical problems of
>quantum mechanics provide convenient loopholes for Harnad's grounding
>(and even Searle's powers) to operate without postulating undiscovered
>physical mechanisms.

The "philosophical problems of QM" are not problems with QM.  They are
problems with the (admittedly dominant) Copenhagen interpretation of
QM which is philosophically very dubious.  (I know it is fruitless to
say this, but it must be said every now and then).
  
>
>Quantum philosophers have to reason very fast to keep mind/consciousness
>out of matter.

QM encourages one to abandon strict determinism.  This is the _only_
philosophical effect of QM.  As soon as one adopts a different
"interpretation" of QM (try the many-worlds interpretation, for
instance), the intrusion of mind/consciousness into the physics goes
away; it is strictly an artifact of the Copenhagen interpretation.  I
am not recommending an interpretation; I am pointing out that the
interpretation that is in use is not part of the physics, and imports
some weird philosophical consequences which are not warranted by the
physics.  (Many-worlds also has weird consequences, but they are on a
different level, and more in line with the weirdness of the physics).


  The current debate shows that philosophers of the mind
>have to reason sharply to keep physics out of the mind.  Perhaps
>it is time to admit the possibility that mind and matter may be 
>inextricably mixed up in some mysterious way.

There isn't anything particularly mysterious about it; it all falls
out very neatly when we give up ascribing occult powers to ourselves.
The details are mysterious (a matter for delicate scientific
investigation) but the broad picture practically draws itself.

In the case of the Copenhagen interpretation of QM, we ascribe occult
powers to ourselves in order to avoid the obvious consequence of the
physics -- the state of the observer is _also_ "mixed"; when he opens
the box with Schrodinger's cat in it, he settles down into a mixture
of stroking the live fuzzy beast and disposing of the pitiful
remains...

Nothing above is to be construed as denying that nondeterministic
behaviour (chaotic, perhaps related to QM effects) may have something
to do with the functioning of the mind.  For the record, I don't think
that such "nondeterminism" has anything to do with the vexed question
of "free will"; I think that in the cases in which we want to ascribe
the occult power of "free will" to ourselves, our behaviour is in fact
(had better be!) "determined".  What such effects may do is save
Buridan's Ass from starvation (allow us to make choices where there
are no criteria to justify one choice over the other, but a choice
must be made), which is worthy, and relevant to our success as
intelligences, but rather less glamorous.


>
>--
>Thomas Clarke
>Institute for Simulation and Training
>University of Central Florida
>12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
>(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059
>clarke@acme.ucf.edu


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


