Squonk, DMB, OK Squonk, so your Schroedinger's Cat reference is just to point out that 'orrible things do happen to cuddly beings in thought experiments - but they are just thought experiments with other valid points to reveal despite that.
I just wanted you to say it - to DMB, so we could move on - maybe you did and I missed it. (If I was looking for an argument, which I'm not, I'd say the brain-in-vattists are different in that there is never any deliberate destruction of a whole viable human to get to the brain in a vat stage .... but, anyway the points of TE1 still stand.) Ian On 7/1/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Ian and David, > I don't want any trouble. > I am not having fun at David's expense or trying to make anyone appear > foolish, if that is possible. > > Kitty kat lovers in the scientific world don't worry about Schrodinger's > cat do they? > As a kitty kat lover, i feel sorry for the little guy myself, but it's not > happening. > squonk > > Hi Squonk & DMB, > > Squonk, the "point" of your though experiment no doubt concerns the static > (patterned) and/or dynamic (unpatterned) quality of any pre-linguistic > experience (or lack of it) in human infants. You've said as much already. > > You seem to be agreeing (with DMB) that this is a "developmental > psychology" > area, a much previously studied subject by both relevant anthropologists > and > philosophers. Be nice to develop that ? > > You agreed with me much earlier that earlier, much recorded, brain-in-a-vat > thought experiments, also considered brains deprived of sensory experince, > but went on to suggest that such though experiments had not considered the > "moral" angle - hence your own thought experiment. (I'm not so sure you're > right there - but I digress). > > So, Squonk, could you adddress DMB's expressed "stunned" concern, that > whatever the "point" of the hypothetical thought experiment the practical > idea of various sensory deprivations of human infants (brains of real > living > humans) is itself morally "suspect" to begin with. Like, Duh ! Obviously. > Sorry to ask. I expect you are deliberately having some fun with DMB, but > if > you don't address his point, you would accept that it is getting in the way > of the rest of the thought experiment being taken seriously ? > "Schroedinger's Cat" doesn't sound like addressing the question to me. > > Or I could just "get me coat". > Fascinating either way. Suspending disbelief if OK by me, BTW. > Ian > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
