[ Quote edited to use a more appropriate word. :smile: ]But if we apply - and rely on - logic, we must follow it to its conclusion, even if we'd rather not. And logic says that aplausiblepossible theory that can't be falsified or disproven is (at least until the arrival of new evidence) acceptable for use, and may not be casually dismissed. — Pattern-chaser
On the one hand, I personally agree with your quote above. I think I do so because the possibility that incredible theories can turn out to be true is interesting, exciting. — Jake
On the other hand, some people will disagree with the quote. They may do so because, for them, it's more comfortable to live in a world where things are largely nailed down. — Jake
Does it really matter whether we call it a thought experiment, a theory, a hypothesis or a fairy story? Quibbling over the label we use to describe it just distracts attention from the topic. — Pattern-chaser
[My highlighting.]You have spent an inordinate amount of energy and time researching something that is absolutely unlikely to happen in the history of existence. — Akanthinos
Questioning the likelihood of a thought experiment is a sure-fire way of signaling how far you are from the proper philosophical attitude. — Akanthinos
Theories without evidence. How do we deal with them? — Pattern-chaser
Known to many of us here: HItchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." — tim wood
Your repeated use of "objective" bothers me — Pattern-chaser
Known to many of us here: HItchen's razor: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." — tim wood
You miss my central point, with your quibbling over terms and philosophical orthodoxy. — Pattern-chaser
Whatever this "something" is, can you quantify how "unlikely" it is? If not, how do you know it's "unlikely"? — Pattern-chaser
"The proper philosophical attitude"? Please. — Pattern-chaser
Yes, I've seen this before, but it's just like Occam's Razor: a rule of thumb which has proved useful in the past, which we can choose to apply if there's no better way of proceeding. Neither of these razors has authority; they're just ways of guessing.
If we are choosing to turn a spotlight on such decisions, as we are here, the use of rules of thumb (guesses) doesn't seem appropriate or useful. They just help to mask our lack of justification for the decisions we make about these things. It is my intention here either to convince you that we make these decisions without justification, or to learn from you that there's something I've missed. Can you help? :chin: :up: — Pattern-chaser
Does it really matter whether we call it a thought experiment, a theory, a hypothesis or a fairy story? — Pattern-chaser
It is my intention here either to convince you that we make these decisions without justification, or to learn from you that there's something I've missed. Can you help? — Pattern-chaser
I think the brain-in-a-vat example is a very intelligent thought experiment. However, it ignores the reality of our perception. While most of our perception relates to our senses directly, there is a level of perception which seems to be beyond them. I mean instances where we meet a person and we perceive them as compatible/incompatible or as having some kind of good/ill intentions, etc. Intuition and gut-feeling may not be right all the time or exactly scientific but the accuracy and the degree of dependability by the instinctive mechanism is quite telling. — BrianW
The Brain in the Vat is that it doesn't actually explain anything new. It doesn't answer any questions. It just proposes a scenario which is theoretically consistent with any set of observations. — hypericin
:blush: :smile:I’ve intentionally avoided this thread because it addresses a darn good, and very complex, question. Compliments to the chef. — javra
The BIV scenario, as far as I can comprehend, is one asking how we can justify that we are not BIVs. Maybe this can be justified. My best go at it in a nutshell: The very idea of being a BIV is dependent on there being such a thing as real brains, wirings, and computers. Yet if we were BIVs, then all our empirical data would be bogus by entailment of so being BIVs. — javra
Me too! :up:All the same, I’d like to read of other logical reasons for dismissing some philosophical conundrums but not others. — javra
Does it really matter whether we call it a thought experiment, a theory, a hypothesis or a fairy story? — Pattern-chaser
It matters. — Caldwell
Yes, it does matter. It is the topic. There are some moves which are permissible against a theory and which have no purchase whatsoever on a thought experiment. For example, questioning the likelihood. — Akanthinos
how should we deal, logically, with speculations that are possible, but that come without evidence?
N.B. Brain-in-a-vat is a good example, but it is only an example, and not the topic itself. We are entirely unconcerned here with whether the brain-in-a-vat speculation is true or not. — Pattern-chaser
Good question.OK, then I apologise to all for my imprecise use of words, and re-present the topic as: how should we deal, logically, with speculations that are possible, but that come without evidence? — Pattern-chaser
I believe the brain-in-a-vat theory only addresses the idea of our perception of reality and cannot, due to its many deficiencies, form any lasting imprint on reality. — BrianW
For the brain-in-a-vat to create any illusion, it must have perception for its raw materials. Therefore, what part of its reality is it perceiving? That connection between illusion and reality calls for a mechanism which governs their interrelation. — BrianW
Personally, I choose to accept a theory which states that illusion is a part of reality, in that, it is a representation of it, though with certain modifications which may distort or disguise the relation. Nonetheless, they are always related. — BrianW
Jesus bloody Christ.
The brain in a vat scenario doesn't describe a theory — Akanthinos
t may not have been what Harman or Putnam were talking about, but it clearly is what Pattern-chaser is talking about, so I think it might be reasonable to dial down the indignation a bit. — Pseudonym
And it asks: how should we deal with such speculations, logically? — Pattern-chaser
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.