I only see two questions in this line of conversation?
do you have a principled disagreement with all of the arguments for why nothing remotely like this is possible even in principle, or… are you not familiar with them?
I’m not familiar with the specific arguments you’re referring to, but I don’t think it’s actually possible for disembodied minds to exist at all, in the first place. So no I don’t have principled disagreements for those arguments, I have tentative agreement with them.
The “this” in “all of the arguments for why nothing remotely like this is possible even in principle” was referring not to the “disembodied spirits” stuff, but rather to:
With enough time and thought I’m sure I could discuss a wide range of experiences with a wide range of how confident I am at how I’d experience them as a chicken. Even though it would be impossible for me writing this to ever actually experience those things, it’s still easy to take my understanding of the world and apply it in a thought experiment.
And I mentioned Nagel because of this essay (which was by no means the only argument for a position like Nagel’s, just the most famous one).
So it sounds like you’re not familiar with this part of the literature. If that’s so, then I think you’ll find it interesting to delve into it.
The “this” in “all of the arguments for why nothing remotely like this is possible even in principle” was referring not to the “disembodied spirits” stuff, but rather to:
And I mentioned Nagel because of this essay (which was by no means the only argument for a position like Nagel’s, just the most famous one).
So it sounds like you’re not familiar with this part of the literature. If that’s so, then I think you’ll find it interesting to delve into it.