Wikipedia talk:Philosophy/Notice Board

message: Please do not delete this page when the matter is decided.  Instead, "move this entire dicussion to one of the discussion boards ... so that it is not lost when or if the merge tags are removed.--RossF18 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

message: I have included every WP:RS example I found. Anarchia (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Places where the brain in a vat and evil genius hypotheses are described as having significant differences

message: How about this idea? Thomas Ash (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Unite under 'Skeptical hypothesis'

message: * I've come to this late, and probably can't add much. Nevertheless, I haven't seen much mention of Dennett in the above. :) Dennett in "Consciousness Explained" distinguishes between the two thought experiments on the basis of purpose. Descartes's evil demon is trying to trick Descartes into thinking that he doesn't exist.  Descartes proposes the demon to establish that his ability to doubt (or think, depending on how you read it) is not something that can be tricked. Therefore he must exist. The brain in the vat, on the other hand, isn't concerned with people's existence. Rather the focus is on the nature of experience. That aside, the bit which I find more interesting is the refutation of the the Brain in a Vat proposed by Dennett - his combinatorial explosion. As the brain in the vat is proposed to exist within the world, it needs to follow the world's physical laws (at least to a greater extent that the Demon, which need not follow any laws). Thus Dennett can attack the experiment on the basis of logical possibilities, while Descartes cannot. While I don't tend to share Dennett's conclusions, I think he has a point - by having the thought experiment embedded in "science fiction" over fantasy/mysticism he is able to emphasize other aspects of the debate, and the viability can be questioned in ways that the demon won't allow. I guess I'm just arguing that I (and, at least in the one work, Dennett) don't see the two theories as equivalent. The "I" of that part is of no real value, but maybe the "Dennett" is. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I forgot to mention Crispin Wright, who's also been missed in the discussion. In "On Putnam's Proof that we are not Brains in a Vat" he argues that there are more just just superficial differences between the vat and the demon. :) It's an interesting paper, if a tad heavy to work through. - Bilby (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is arguing that "the two theories [are] equivalent", just that one came out of the other one and thus should be a subsection of the other. --RossF18 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There were a few comments suggesting equivalence above. :) In spite of the rather neat list of people who argued that they were equivalent that Anarchia provided, I'd be inclined not to use that as a justification for a merger. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether something is treated the same by a particular author for the purpose of making a particular philosophical argument shows just how related these two things are, necessitating the merger. Sources that you reference do not argue that these concepts are equivalent, but use the terms interchangeably because the brain in the vat idea stems from the evil demon idea. However, whether you argue that these two things are equivalent or your argue that the one stems from the other, the point is that there should only be one article with Brain in the vat being a subsection of the evil demon article. --RossF18 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The sources I reference don't use the terms interchangeably at all. :) Indeed, they specifically argue that the two arguments are not equivalent, and should not be used interchangeably. I can see a case for merger, but if it is made, it is worth recalling that while brain in the vat has a historical connection with Descartes, it is not an equivalent argument, and (if you accept Dennett) does not share the same purpose - it is used to illustrate different things. On the other hand, simulated reality and the dream argument are closer in purpose (although once again not equivalent), but don't necessarily share the same derivation. It makes more sense to me not to merge, but to improve and connect the articles, so as to highlight their relationships. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this is roughly the same as something you suggested earlier, RossF18. If I'm reading it correctly. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, I could get behind not merging, but improving and conncting the articles, so as to highlight their relationship. Currently, however, that's not the case. While there fairly good paragraph indicating the connection in the brain in the vat article, there is nothing about the connection in the evil dameon article. If that's remedied, I see no problem with finding a compromise. --RossF18 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: March

message: This discussion has been going on for close to a year with no consensus, which would seem like an indication that we should keep things as is, at least for now. I propose closing the discussion and saving the talk page for future consideration on either one or both of the article talk pages. --RossF18 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propsed Closing the Discussion