[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
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
I'd love to hear about epiphenominal qualia - I think this may be a point on
which you and I disagree, David. Also I strongly echo Bernie's request. I
guess this would be a problem if we're going to publish the papers in a
journal institutions have to pay for, though. I wish I could summarise my
paper for those of you that weren't there, but its current 2500-word form
actually needs extension to be clear.
Edward is right to ask how much Putnam succeeds in showing. We all agree (as
far as I can tell) that he fails to show we know we aren't brains in a vat.
But I think he does succeed in showing important things, if you take his point
about content being external. And even if you don't, it's a remarkable
contribution to our philosophy of language. I'm still not too sure about
semantic externalism (in some ways I think this result should count as an
argument against it) but Putnam shows that semantic externalism implies that
if we were brains in vats, we wouldn't be able to say (or even think) we were.
This is very confusing.
So if I were to attempt to attack Putnam's version of semantic externalism (I
think some form of it is almost certainly correct) I might start like this:
suppose I were both a brain in a vat and a philosopher, and that I conjectured
that I was a brain in a vat. Then the similarity between the actual world and
the postulated world that I intended to refer to (remembering that my
intentions have been at least partly warped by my BIV-hood) would be extreme.
Doesn't this suggest that the causal-contact requirement in Putnam's argument
looks dodgy? Of course causal contact with some things will be necessary for
some intentions, but it isn't clear that what we are in contact with shapes
the nature of our intentions in a very straightforward way...
On the other hand I might start like this: we don't know anything about the
external world. So a metaphysics in which the physical is of prime importance
is just perverse. So what really matters about language is the way we
communicate, not the way our communications are related to physical things...
yours,
Patrick.
In message <io986g.dfw6k7@webmail.saitch.net> "David Saitch"
<philosophy@saitch.net> writes:
> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
>
>
>
> Oh, my latest brain related target is Frank Jackson's Epiphenominal Qualia!
>
> I'll get a debate going on that.
>
> D
>
> "David Saitch" <philosophy@saitch.net> wrote:
>
> > 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
>
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.htm