User talk:Nootiebeans

Welcome!
Hello, Nootiebeans, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with Wiki Education; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

You have an overdue training assignment.
Please complete the assigned training modules. --TrudiJ (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review
All in all I think the additions to the article are good. I think discussing causal constraint in reference to BIV is important, and the location where you made your additions naturally flow with the rest of the article. If I were to make any changes to the article, I think there needs to be a bit more said about the impure brain in a vat. This logic to me makes more sense than a brain being born into a vat (not that either scenario is common practice) (or is it), and the incoherence argument is completely negated if we remove the causal constraint from the equation. If the brain's idea of a "vat" matches the vat it is located within, who is to say the brain is incorrect when it claims "I am a brain in a vat." The way the current article ends leaves it on somewhat of a cliffhanger. I know philosophical debates aren't necessarily supposed to be "solved", but if an argument is presented, the counterargument should not completely destroy the strongest argument given on the page. (I assume this ending existed before you made your changes, and your changes make the argument from incoherence stronger.)

WCI Peer Review
Hi! I'm a student in the WCI (UUNI 110) Class, we're having a class with Prof. Jacobson on peer review.

I read the possible changes to the Brain in a vat article and I believe that it holds good information. The section on Argument from incoherence includes good points, the stress on the differences between the twin earth and our earth then the simulation and embodied brains.

A possible change in the Draft section of the edit: 'To do this, Putnam first established a relationship that he refers to as a "causal connection" which is sometimes referred to as "a causal constraint".'

This sentence could be written as: "...he refers to as a 'casual connection' or 'casual constraint'..." There is no need to use 'refer' multiple times in one sentence. This is just grammatical, I believe more can be changed overall, but what you've edited already makes sense for the topic and is useful. PurpleNudibranch (talk) 14:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Peer Review Response
Thank you for your peer review! I agree with you that the complexity of Agent Causation leaves the article with much information to be added. Your suggestion to continue including viewpoints resonated with me; my current plan is to add information about why Libertarians gravitate toward Agent Causation. Your advice is much appreciated! Alabaw25 (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WCI Peer Edit
Reading your third argument "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." really open a new door for me to criticize BIV. However, I am a Compuoter Science Student. Thinking about the computer, do computer know what a "cat" is? The answer is no, but our code give them a definition of cat, and we will do the same to the brain in the vat. Therefore, I think your argument is not sufficient. But if we thinking it in a diffenent way. What make human a "human"? Many people think we are exist because we are human, but I think I am human because we are in these big community. It may hard to understand, but you can think this way, a genius live in a society of genius, then the genius is not the genius anymore, he will be seen as a normal person. That is why I think BIV is a fallacy, because when a brain be treated like that, does it still counted as a human?