Ok, so the essay is due in tommorow, and I've got a theory, but I can't tell if its right or not, and I don't know who to ask... Ah well, it was worth a shot
( Read more... )
Your last paragraph says that Putnam thinks "we cannot assume that we have a concept of causation available" unrelated to any specific world. if we cannot assume we have a concept of causation available even in the real world, then yes, that makes no sense, because his argument requires that we can talk about things and therefore we must be causally connected to things; if semantic externalism is right then we have to have causation and understand it. However, he can consistently claim that in the vat world we couldn't assume that relationship to causation, because his argument is that in the vat world we would not be able to talk about things. the vat world is incompatible with semantic externalism, so it is fine for us to not be able to understand semantic externalism in the vat world. Although, that is circular - we can't be sure about causality in the vat world because in the vat world we could not be causally connected to things - is that right? I'm not quite sure what the argument in the middle is: However, what if the brains
( ... )
Thankyou! I feel enlightened now. I think I overcomplicated it. You were right about why we can't be sure of causality. But we can still say that the scenario is possible, so it is no more unreasonable than other sceptical doubts. That being the case, I don't know if I will draw on the point that semantic externalism itself relies on causation so we need to be permitted it - that seems irrelevant now, as like you say it would not be nessecary to understand it from within the vat world if it is true a priori (whether that is true is another question*). But if we can postulate being envatted by describing in terms of causal relations, then putnam must show that we can't even have that doubt, and I don't think he can do that.
"does this mean: causal relations in the program could function in the same way as causal relations in the actual world? and if so, in what sense?"I mean in the same sense that computer games have physics engines and seperately defined interactive objects, but obviously a far more in depth version so they are true
( ... )
Thanksyou! Got there just on time :D Now I've got an extension on Kant until 10am... The admin actually asked nasta this morning whether she should expect me in with the essays today -__- being disorganised is too obvious.
Ah well, i'm gonna go convince people that genius isn't just in art. Sometimes I wonder if Kant thought these things to get a lasting legacy. FULLSTEAM
Comments 4
However, what if the brains ( ... )
Reply
"does this mean: causal relations in the program could function in the same way as causal relations in the actual world? and if so, in what sense?"I mean in the same sense that computer games have physics engines and seperately defined interactive objects, but obviously a far more in depth version so they are true ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Ah well, i'm gonna go convince people that genius isn't just in art. Sometimes I wonder if Kant thought these things to get a lasting legacy. FULLSTEAM
Reply
Leave a comment