Last night I had a fun conversation with Quee Nelson, author of The Slightest Philosophy. She was worried I was missing the boat on one aspect of her theory.
When considering the brain-in-the-vat problem, she wouldn't say there is "no evidence" for the thesis, since the typical vat-hypothesist does offer some kind of argument.
For instance, in The Matrix, there's specific evidence offered - we are told that déjà vuis a glitch in the matrix program. (And then, if you want a boatload of evidence, there's The Red Pill.)
So she would rather say the brain-in-the-vat hypothesis is not the best fit for the evidence we have.
Perhaps we disagree a bit on this!
I'd say the evidence is thin
for those vats we're allegedly in,
so thin I think it's fair
to say it's barely there.
4 comments:
Dear John, whose neat rhymes, I cannot resist: to keep on dissenting I cannot desist. If you'll click on my name, read the short bit below, my plan will be clearer, if not painted in day-glo?
Epistemology, it seems, will ere frustrate rephrasing, but to think on't forever, I will ne'er quit praising. Nothing could beat, in my eyes at least, a dialogue on axioms, vats, and Cartes's Beast!
My belief is that paraphrasing a philosopher is like paraphrasing a poet - a perilous business at best!
But don't forget to click on my name. It links to a very short synopsis that will suddenly make everything clear!
Quee, I read it some time ago. But it's extremely well done, and gives a much fuller flavor of your thought than I am likely to do!
Post a Comment