User:Mmarinkovic5678/Brain in a vat

Note: I have not taken anything directly from the article to add to or subtract from. This paragraph is wholly original, and is meant to be listed under the "Philosophical Debates" section of the article as, well, another example of an ongoing debate surrounding the BIV. This should make my edits pretty easy to track, since you won't have to compare what I've changed to what was there originally (since this is, again, original).

Note 2: I made a few small additions since I originally wrote this. First and most obviously, I added these notes up here. In the paragraph itself, I edited the wordings of some sentences for clarification, and added citation 5 to add strength to my claim that his argument remains influential.

Note 3: As of 3/5, I combined what were originally citations 1 and 2 into one citation so as not to clog up the references section with the same thing.

Argument from Incoherence

A third argument from the philosopher Hilary Putnam attempts to demonstrate the thought experiment's incoherence on the basis that it is self-refuting. To do this, Putnam first argued in favor of a theory of reference that would later become known as semantic externalism. He offers the "Twin Earth" example to demonstrate that two identical individuals, one on our earth and another on a "twin earth", may possess the exact same mental state and thoughts, yet refer to two different things. For instance, when we think of cats, the referent of our thoughts would be the cats that we find here on earth. However, our twins on twin earth, though possessing the same thoughts, would instead be referring not to our cats, but to twin earth's cats. Bearing this in mind, he writes that a "pure" brain in a vat, i.e., one that has never existed outside of the simulation, could not even truthfully say that it was a brain in a vat. This is because the BIV, when it says "brain" and "vat", can only refer to objects within the simulation, not to things outside the simulation it does not have a relationship with. Therefore, what it says is demonstrably false. Alternatively, if the speaker is not actually a BIV, then the statement is also false. He concludes, then, that the statement "I'm a BIV" is necessarily false and self-refuting. This argument has been explored at length in philosophical literature since its publication. One counter-argument says that, even assuming Putnam's reference theory, a brain that on our earth that is "kidnapped", placed into a vat, and subjected to a simulation, could still refer to "real" brains and vats, and thus correctly say it is a brain in a vat. However, the notion that the "pure" BIV is incorrect and the reference theory underpinning it remains influential in the philosophy of mind, language and metaphysics.

Peer Review Response

For my peer review response, I will go through each suggestion and give my thoughts. For most, it will be a very simple "makes sense, changed." There are a few exceptions, though.

-When you mention Hilary Putnam, I would add the words "from the philosopher Hilary Putnam" . We both know that he is a philosopher, but not everyone does so if you mention that he is a philosopher, I think it gives him and his argument more credibility.

Absolutely agreed. Nothing to say here.

- On the 6th sentence, when you say "However, our twins" -it should be singular- delete the "s"

Here I am not so sure. You're probably right, but its worth at least explaining my rationale. I earlier referred to the collective "we"; thus, it made more sense to me to say "our twins" as in "my twin, your twin, his twin"; in other words, "our twins."

-Next line when you state "would be referring not to our cats, but to twin earth's" - need the word "to" there

I agree completely here. Consider it changed.

-Next line, need a comma after i.e.,

Agreed and changed.

-Two lines down when you state "says 'brain' and 'vat', refers to objects within the simulation," I would make the argument stronger, maybe by changing "refers" to the words "can only refer to objects within the simulation"

I think this really comes down to wording. I say this because the sentence immediately after, I do essentially the same thing by adding "not to things outside of it with which it lacks the necessary relationship to refer." But I suppose yours is a little less wordy. For that reason, I'll probably adopt something similar.

- Continuing with this section "not to things outside of it with which it lacks the necessary relationship to refer", maybe change to something a little more clear like "not to things outside the simulation it does not know or have a relationship with"

Ah. I wrote the response to your last suggestion before I read this one. Now I see more clearly what you were going for, and I think you're right. Your suggestion is far clearer. I'll change it.

-Next line instead of stating ",then the statement is false too", maybe state "then the statement is also false"

Once again, I think is just a question of wording. Yet your suggestion here is clearer too. I'll adopt it.

-When you state, "This argument has been explored at length in philosophical literature since its publication_____", I was curious to see a date. If you are using the length of time a year may help?

To be completely honest, I don't think this is really necessary. I think it would just make the sentence read slightly clunkier; meanwhile, the publication date can be found rather easily by scrolling down to the list of references.

- On the sentence where you say on the "counter- argument..... that once existed on our earth but was 'kidnapped' and placed into a vat _____ could refer to 'real' brains", I think you should add the words "on twin earth" where I put the line.

Here is one suggestion I must object to, but due to my own fault. I'll explain what I mean. I should not have said "that once existed on our earth." in the first place. This seems to imply that the brain was literally transported to another place, like twin earth (in which case your suggestion makes perfect sense). However, this is not exactly what I meant. The scenario, albeit concisely, I was trying to illustrate is one such as this. Imagine an evil scientist (here on our Earth as you and I understand it) kidnaps me, carefully then extracting my brain, placing it in a vat, and subjecting me to a simulation. In that case, unlike the "pure" BIV, when I say in the simulation "that's a chair", I've said something false, since I do, in that case, have the necessary relationship with "real" chairs such that the simulated chair is not what I mean by that word. The key part is that the brain, or so I meant, is still on "real Earth." In sum, while I must object, you've inspired me to rewrite the sentence so as to clarify what I meant.

One last thing. While I appreciate your great recommendation for further reading, it seems that every copy I've looked for online is hidden behind a pretty pricey paywall. So, even if I paid, someone who wanted to verify my sources presumably couldn't unless they too paid. This isn't surprising, though, considering that it was published fairly recently.

References

PEER REVIEW- suggestions ( I have added to my review from yesterday more suggestions)

1. I agree with the section of the Article that you chose to add this argument to and that it should stand on its own. I do not think you need to mention or add anything to the "lead" , specially since the "uses" section right after the lead mentions the philosophical application.
2. I have a couple of ideas and suggestions on the text:

- When you mention Hilary Putnam, I would add the words "from the philosopher Hilary Putnam" . We both know that he is a philosopher, but not everyone does so if you mention that he is a philosopher, I think it gives him and his argument more credibility.

- On the 6th sentence, when you say "However, our twins" -it should be singular- delete the "s"

-Next line when you state "would be referring not to our cats, but to twin earth's" - need the word "to" there

-Next line, need a comma after i.e.,

-Two lines down when you state "says 'brain' and 'vat', refers to objects within the simulation," I would make the argument stronger, maybe by changing "refers" to the words "can only refer to objects within the simulation"

- Continuing with this section "not to things outside of it with which it lacks the necessary relationship to refer", maybe change to something a little more clear like "not to things outside the simulation it does not know or have a relationship with"

-Next line instead of stating ",then the statement is false too", maybe state "then the statement is also false"

-When you state, "This argument has been explored at length in philosophical literature since its publication_____", I was curious to see a date. If you are using the length of time a year may help?

- On the sentence where you say on the "counter- argument..... that once existed on our earth but was 'kidnapped' and placed into a vat _____ could refer to 'real' brains", I think you should add the words "on twin earth" where I put the line.

3. Going through the peer review questions:

- I found this argument very interesting and relevant. It had been awhile since I read about the brain in a vat but think this is a very relevant and important scenario so this article was a great choice to expand on.

- The article was neutral and you added the counter argument. If you want to add more on this argument for the next two weeks addition, I read Chapter 12 of Tim Button's "The Limits of Realism" book published in 2013 (so it is more recent) and he really discusses the whole brain in a vat scenario, explains more on Putnam's position, and presents the sceptic position. Just a thought if you are looking for a source to expand your submission.

- I think given that your paragraph addition was to set forth the argument by Putnam, the space you gave the counter-argument makes sense to me. Again, maybe you can use the above source to expand on this more if you want.

-Your sources are reliable and Putnam was a well known philosopher so he himself is a great source for his ideas from his book "Reason, Truth and History" written by him.

- I hope this helps. If I think of anything, even if it is after the peer reviews are due, I will reach out to you.