Which philosophical thought experiments annoy you the most?
For me it's "brain in a vat". Whenever someone brings up this argument, I cringe and know immediately that he's a superficial pseudo-intellectual.
Perspectivism
I'm not sure why that thought experiment bugs so many people. It's just underscoring a fundamental limitation of our perceptions.
>>1096743
because it is misused by fedoras who like to claim we are in the matrix
>>1096698
Thought experiments that don't raise any testable notions are a waste of braincycles. "Brain in a vat" and solipsism in general falls into this category, doesn't matter whether they're true of not and no conceivable way to tell, so why waste your time wondering about them?
>>1096790
RIP Putnam.
>>1096743
>It's just underscoring a fundamental limitation of our perceptions.
It isn't tho, it's bounded by our intuitions, which are often at odds with how reality actually is. If your thought experiment doesn't pose questions that can be resolved, then it's told you nothing useful.
>>1096698
Philosophical zombie
>>1096698
I don't get why that should make you cringe.
It's usually used as a reminder that empirical observation in general can be misleading, and your mind can be tricked.
>>1097099
Honestly, the difference between the "philisophical zombie" the abstraction and the anally born, who are flesh and blood, is pretty academic. So why not deal with the philisophical zombie?
I also hate Schrödinger's cat and Plato's cave.
>>1097175
>Schrödinger's cat
The purpose of this experiment was to show quantum mechanics to be ridiculous and thus nonsense. It's a classic example of our intuitions leading us astray, turns out reality is, in fact, ridiculous.
>>1097099
>he wants humans to be replaced by soulless robots that merely simulate sapience
>>1097200
Well, many physicists tend to believe in the conclusions of that thought experiment though. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is still very popular tbqh.
>>1097028
It's told you that those questions can't be resolved. The fallibility of our senses is a big fucking hurdle in philosophy, and one that's best taken into account.
>>1097246
>Well, many physicists tend to believe in the conclusions of that thought experiment though.
Physicists don't "believe in" things like the Copenhagen interpretation, it's more that they see such frameworks as useful for further research.
>>1097269
>It's told you that those questions can't be resolved.
It hasn't, tho. All it's told you is that you can't reach truth thru reason alone, which is something you should have already have known.
>>1096698
His meditations. Jesus Christ.
Descartes and Kant's thoughts should be erased from reality.
>>1097313
Physicists certainly believe in things.
Knowledge is after all just justified true belief.
>>1097369
>Knowledge is after all just justified true belief.
I disagree with his definition, but even by this definition no physicist worth his salt will claim to actually know anything "truly". All he would say is that he's fairly sure about some things, less sure about other things, and completely in the dark about yet others.
>>1097245
>soulless
>implying soulless robots imitating sapience would be a bad thing
>implying you're not a soulless robot imitating sapience
>implying good/bad
>>1096698
All of them.
>>1096802
How is it more a waste than anything else?
>>1097028
The point is things cannot be solved in an absolute way. You can only be relatively certain of something and Descartes thought experiment shows takes this to the logical extreme end.
It's a perfectly good thing to bring up if someone claims anything is absolutely, completely, certain.
>>1097200
>The purpose of this experiment was to show quantum mechanics to be ridiculous and thus nonsense. It's a classic example of our intuitions leading us astray, turns out reality is, in fact, ridiculous.
>>>1097246 #
>>1097246
>Well, many physicists tend to believe in the conclusions of that thought experiment though. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is still very popular tbqh.
why the ever loving fuck do people insist on talking about one of the most complicated things humans have ever developed without learning anything about it? Neither of you could solve a basic algebraic equation. Fuck off
>>1097245
>simulate sapience
what is the difference between simulating sapience and having sapience? we already assume that other humans also have consciousness so why not assume that for robots that appear to have more or less the same mental capabilities?
>>1097294
>>1099205
>I am going to contribute nothing of value, but I will call everyone else retarded.
Brain in a vat is a pretty misunderstood one.
Trolley problems in general for me. It seems like such an unrealistic situation that most people cannot answer it. It has tons of epistemological concerns and it seems like most people in some way just try to blame them.
Gettier problems are usually hilariously bad examples.
Then the arguments against free will which goes like:
If I had a giant computer I could calculate what you would do!
1. It doesn't matter whether my actions are predictable.
2. Any such computer is impossible due to Gödel.
I understand where the sentiment comes from but compatabilists believe in determinism and free will.
Experiments based on "physics" bother me as well because most of the time I read them it feels like they have just copy-pasted a line from wikipedia about a debated theory.
When actually pressing them to explain the implications they go "I'm not a physicist!" Why do people use arguments they literally don't understand?
>>1097369
The believe that their models closely describe observed reality, but that's about it.
>>1099999
wasted...
>>1096802
solipsism is testable and verified
>>1099319
so sorry I don't have the time to explain at least 3 years worth (absolute minimum) of math and physics to strangers on a Chinese cartoon forum.
all I can say is that until you get a physics degree then you gain absolutely nothing talking about Schrodingers cat. Because you literally don't understand it. Sorry if that's not enough contribution.
>>1099999
>quints
>everyone ignores them
What is wrong with this board?
>>1097028
i don't think brain-in-a-vat is bounded by intuitions in the way some thought experiments are. it seems like it's a different type to those that try to elicit intuitions. how do intuitions have a role in skeptical scenarios?
Schrodingers cat desu. Not becaude its a bad thought experiment, but because 90% of people who bring it up don't understand the actual experiment or what the outcome actually is.
