What it Means to Live in a Virtual World Generated by Our Brain | Jan Westehoff https://www.academia.edu/37188946/What_it_Means_to_Live_in_a_Virtual_World_Generated_by_Our_Brain?s=t … via @academia (my comments follow in 4 more tweets)
-
Show this thread
-
A no doubt interesting discussion of the problem. But as far as I can see it is solipsistic, i.e. it adopts the view that we only have our own observations from which to understand the world. 1/4
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
Hence Westerhoff remains trapped in a bubble at the end of the essay and sees no way to resolve the relation between real and virtual world. And is still talking about Platonic noumena. 2/4
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Meanwhile millions of scientists have been describing the mind-independent world with high levels of precision and accuracy over centuries. If the world is not there, then how do we account for science? We cannot. 3/4.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
This solipsistic approach philosophy has not progressed since Kant tried to reconcile Hume's epistemology with Newton's empiricism and came up with the first virtual world hypothesis. Simply *comparing notes* breaks the deadlock. But OK, this really is rocket science. 4/4.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @Jayarava
Worth noting that this problem is mostly confined to anglophone/analytic philosophy. Continental philosophy has taken knowledge as socially distributed and socially created/discovered since (ugh, but give him credit) Hegel.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness @Jayarava
Continental philosophy has other dire problems, but synthesizing its social insights with (e.g.) the American pragmatist tradition, or empiricism/common sense, leads in good directions.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
John Searle certainly struck me as sensible, until I caught up with his assertion of naive realism.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Unfortunately there are zero philosophers who are consistently sensible afaik. Occupational hazard: getting sucked into metaphysical arguments that have non-sensible framings so no sensible position exists.
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Jayarava
Rajeev Ramachandran Retweeted Yogi Jaeger
You both may be interested in this documenthttps://twitter.com/yoginho/status/997100479283912704?s=19 …
Rajeev Ramachandran added,
Yogi Jaeger @yoginhoThe excellent forthcoming book on process biology “Everything Flows” (edited by@NicholsonHPBio & John Dupré; https://global.oup.com/academic/product/everything-flows-9780198779636?cc=gb&lang=en&# …) can now be preordered through Amazon: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Everything-Flows-Towards-Processual-Philosophy/dp/0198779631/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526557457&sr=8-1&keywords=everything+flows+nicholson&dpID=41lXEQ2fMBL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch …. Note that a free PDF will be available from the OUP website.@OUPPhilosophy1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The free PDF is available here https://www.researchgate.net › publication
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.