RE: could you be a brain in a vat?

["Bernie Doeser" <bernie@doeser.org>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


I aspire to be a brain in a vat ...

Seriously, my point is that those of us who couldn't make it to the
conference have difficulty in understanding, let alone joining in, these
threads. Would it be possible to put the conference papers up on the bups
website? I'm sure that the material at the conference will feed this
discussion group for some time to come, and some background would help the
debate along for those of us who couldn't make it there, well physically
anyway.

Bernie Doeser
Sandiway, Cheshire, UK.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com
[mailto:owner-bups-dis@purplepancake.com]On Behalf Of David Saitch
Sent: 12 October 2005 16:47
To: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Cc: Edward Grefenstette; Alice Evans
Subject: Re: could you be a brain in a vat?

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org



Oh my giddy aunt!

Well, obviously I agree that Putnam failed to prove the case.

(Interestigly I have been asked to present a revised version of my paper at
a
Birkbeck conference next month)

He fails to close a logical loop and all he really shows is that the brain
in
the vat couldn't know it was a brain in a vat. So he's rather foolishly
given
the sceptic some ammo.

As to whether we could be, well, I don't think so, but sadly I can't prove
it
yet.




Edward Grefenstette <pha04eg@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email:
BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
> I found their argumentation to hold more water than the vats Putnam
> dreams of, to use David's imagery. However while I find Hillary
> Putnam's position is, as it is, hard to defend. The question of 'to
> what extent it is wrong' is what is philosophically interesting, in
> my opinion. Perhaps that's what we should be putting up for debate?
>
> -- Edward.
>
> On 12 Oct 2005, at 12/10/200515:40, Alice Evans wrote:
>
> > ** For Your Eyes Only **
> >
> > yes, that was their conclusion.
> > i was wondering if anyone dissented from that opinion, both method
> > and final product
> >
> >
> >
> > This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an
> > attachment
> > may still contain software viruses, which could damage your
> > computer system:
> > you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications
> > with the
> > University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK
> > legislation.
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing
list
> at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm
>





Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list
at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm




Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm