Wikipedia talk:Philosophy/Notice Board

"Please do not delete this page when the matter is decided. Instead, 'move this entire dicussion to one of the discussion boards ... so that it is not lost when or if the merge tags are removed.--RossF18 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)'"

Merging Brain in a vat and evil genius

 * First, the articles are really talking about the same topic - Descartes' evil genius.
 * Second, neither article is very long, but both are a bit incomplete.
 * I propose a MERGE (RossF18 17:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

NO MERGE The topics are two seperate ideas, and this one is of a higher level of thinking that the children's cartoon idea of a 'mad scientist'. The articles are of a cliche and of a theory, hardly related at all. 75.118.155.99 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NO MERGE No, although these theories may be linked, so are all theories, and they are two separate ideas. keep them that way! (Unsigned post by 10:25, 12 August 2007 125.239.100.224 (Talk) )


 * Please sign your posts. As to the point made, may I submit that while "all theories are linked" (I'm not sure what exactly the poster meant by that), these two theories are basically the same with the Demon or villain making a person think that he or she is something other than a brain in a vat. (RossF18 23:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Merge As the propoer suggests, these two thought experiments have more of less the same purpose. They do differ, but a single combined page would b best placed to bring out the similarities and differences. A combined page would be longer, but not excessively long. Anarchia 08:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge Rene Decartes first suggested this concept in the form of an Evil Genius concept. The "brain in a vat" part was a detail of this concept.  However, "brain in a vat" has become well known because it provides a visual image and because it provides a better idea of the concept.  In terms of philosophy, it is more proper to refer to this concept as Decartes' Evil Genius concept.  Additionally, the writing for the "Brain in a vat" is subpar in comparison to other Wiki articles and needs a lot of work.  Those truely interested in this philosophical concept would be better informed if redirected to the Evil Genius article.  As someone who is familiar with this concept, I strongly propose a merge.


 * NO MERGE I wish I could give a detailed list of reasons not to merge, but the Evil Genius argument strikes me as different from the Brain in a Vat. It seems to me that if you were to merge the two, you should also consider merging the Dream argument, which even Descartes thought to be separate, although expounded from the same skepticism. Here's one reason: The Evil Genius argument is about intent to deceive against a full understanding of the world. The Brain in a Vat does not go as far, since being a Brain in a Vat could be the consequence of a hypothetical "life-saving" event. It's certainly debatable, but I urge no merger. I fear a kind of newsspeak setting in. Let's let other people draw their conclusions about the two hypotheticals. Unless the stand has been well-defended and accepted by the philosophical community, let's keep them separate. -unlogged-in-guest
 * NO MERGE Please note that this is a thought experiment related to philosophical positions such as solipsism and idealism. The evil genius plays a miniscule part in this experiment. The core of this article is indeed not about the evil genius but about an idea that is completely different than the idea of evil genius.Swamy g 18:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may respond, to Swamy, while the discussion in the brain in the vat article makes it seemd that it is "completely different than the idea of evil genius" that may not be actually the case. While the brain in the vat extends the idea of evil genius into the modern times, I think the point is that the 'brain in the vat' idea stems out/arrises out of the 'evil genius' and as such, should follow it in the same article. So, while it may be going to far to say that we would not have the brain in the vat without Descartes's evil genius, the Descarte's evil genius was in fact the idea that gave rise to the brain in the vat in phylosophical thought it seems. Also, just as a point of summary, there are now 3 votes to merge and 3 votes for not to merge. Discussion continues. --RossF18 19:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * NO MERGE The two are, and should remain, completely separate entries. There is much more that can and will be added to these entries that will inevitably lead to the disguished and rightful nature of each.
 * Merge both into Simulated reality. Ewlyahoocom 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't merge into simulated reality - this is a different thing, with less diect philosophical interest. Anarchia 06:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge, they're the same. Ewlyahoocom 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge sounds like a reasonable proposal. My main concern is that the "Brain in the vat" article is severely lacking in the sources department.  I'm not sure how helpful it would be to merge so much unsourced material.   Bur nt sau ce  17:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No way They are completely different. The brain in a vat doesn't necessarily need to be because of an evil genius. A.Z. 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Who in the world besides an evil genius would be putting your brain in a vat? Ewlyahoocom 21:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rampant raging robots!


 * It could have been a random event without any conscious being making the decision. A.Z. 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is not whether evil geniuses are necessary for a brain to be in a vat, or anything about the content of the thought experiment. The point is that the form of the thought experiment is the same. These thought experiments are intended to generate the same type of intuitions and serve virtually the same purpose in philosophical arguments. If someone can point to a real difference in use by philosophers, this would be philosophically important. May I make that a challenge to the non-mergers? Illustrate your argument against merging with examples of significant differences in form and use of the two forms of thought experiment. If you can find such differences, with WP:V, the next thing to show is that the similarities and differences are best explained in separate articles. If my point here is not clear, please comment below and I will try to explain it more simply. Anarchia 21:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I dislike the evil genius. The brain in a vat is a much more beautiful thought experiment for me. A.Z. 02:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No Merge Sure there's an intersection, but there is more to both evil geniuses and brains in vats, both in philosophy and popular culture, than is in these articles. If there is confusion, perhaps the articles should be improved rather than merged. -- Logotu 21:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Reasons would be nice... Explain what you believe to be the important differences between the two that mean separate articles are best. Anarchia 04:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No Merge Descartes unleashed the evil daemon into Modern philosophy in Meditations, but that does not mean that every discussion of the concept should be on the page for Descartes' evil daemon (which serves a particular purpose for both him and other Cartesians). The brain in a vat is a separate, contemporary, clear and distinct commentary/modification of what Descartes laid out.    Lwnf360 08:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think one of the main reasons to merge the two articles as they now stand (without any modifications) is exactly what you say, in terms of brain in a vat being a comtemporary extension/modification of what Descartes laid out. Thus, presently, the brain in a vat article should be merged into and below the evil daemon article as the extension of the concept. Alternatively, while evil daemon may not mean that every discussion of the concept should be on the page, currently, there is not even a mention of the theories stemming from evil daemon in a narrative except if you count that "also see" portion, which doesn't really link the two concepts. If both articles are reworked as to (1) make it clear in the evil daemon article about the contemporary theories derived from it in a separate section that briefly summarizes the brain in the vat article and then links to the full one and (2) make it clear in the brain in the vat article in the introduction section that it stems from evil dameon theory and link to it. Then, it might be OK to have two article, one discussing the original theory and one discussing the extension that exists today. However, neither article even mentions in any way either of the other except maybe mentioning Descartes and his Meditations.--RossF18 00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * NO MERGE (Get out of my vat!) The brain-in-a-vat concept, regardless of its origination, requires neither evil nor a genius to implement.  (On theoretical grounds, brains in vats must be randomly emerging from black holes along with every other conceivable object.  And they may arise in worlds simulated by computers.  And the Everything Ensemble says all possible realities exist.  And the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics says all possible paths are followed (which also means "you" are winning your merge argument elsewhere, if that's any consolation) .  And I like my vat so go away!)  --Parsiferon 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And now take a look at the "What links here" link back on the article's page, and compare it to "What links here" over on the Evil Genius page. There are a great many important differences because the two topics are inherently different, albeit related.  Separate topics should stay separate.  --Parsiferon 01:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * First, let me point out that the "what links here" comparison is a bit biased given that the evil dameon article has been relatively recently created when compared to the brain in a vat article, so it's not a stretch that one article that was created recently will have a shorter what links here page. Second, you have yet to explain how the two concepts are inherently different beyond just claiming that "there are a great many important differences." If there are that many, I'll take just five. --RossF18 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Your observation that "the evil dameon article has been relatively recently created when compared to the brain in a article" may be quite significant.  This suggests that -- when viewed from the modern perspective -- the Brain in a Vat article is now more primary and the Evil Genius article is more historical.  This in turn suggests that Evil Genius could become a section of Brain-in-Vat (not the other way around) ... but each topic is important enough to justify its own article.  --Parsiferon (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (2) When I said "a great many important differences" I was referring to the many differences in the links to each page.  My own claim is that "the two topics are inherently different, albeit related" and I stand by it.  --Parsiferon (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Second, no one is claiming that you need an evil demon or genius for brain in the vat to be a reality. The point, however, is that the originator of the entire brain in the vat concept, Descartes, first thought of the idea in terms of evil demon. Yes, it has evolved past that to make it so that brain in the vat no longer needs neither an evil presence or a genius or demon or god (although some creator (be it a generous good scientist or some interesting variation of evolutinary process) would be likely since spontenous appearance of a brain in the vat is unlikely), the point remains that there is not even a mention in either of the article of the similarities. Regardless of the differences, at least the similarities should be acknoledged, even if we decide in the end to keep the two articles separate, which is starting to look more likely. --RossF18 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that each article should certainly briefly describe and link to the other, with a Wikipedia-style crosslink such as "Main article: Brain in a Vat" in one case and "Main article: Evil Genius" in the other. --Parsiferon (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Third, what's all this talk of black holes. Why do "brains in vats must be randomly emerging from black holes along with every other conceivable object. And they may arise in worlds simulated by computers." Saying that brains in vats must emerge from black holes is just like saying that brain in vats must be created by an evil genius or a computer. Nothing is a MUST. And while I too am fascinated by alternate realties and agree that there could be different creators of the brain in the vat in each different reality (with one reality actually having an evil genius perhaps), the fact remains that this is not a discussion about the physics of multiple dimensions and the different possibilities of brains in vats (with vanilla or strawberry flavored flavoring). The multiple creators of vats is at this point irrelevant as far as debating whether to merge the original Descartean concept of evil deamon and the evolving brain in the vat theory. Both articles are rather short and poorly analyzed on their own with no reference to each other. If these things can be fixed, don't merge. At this point, in this reality, however, neither article separately is even remotely well researched. That's the main drive behind the merge, from my persective. --RossF18 02:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) I didn't just conjure up the idea that black holes conjure up brains-in-vats.  It's in the literature.  To quote Nick Bostrom of Yale, "Consider a random phenomenon, for example Hawking radiation. When black holes evaporate, they do so in a random manner such that for any given physical object there is a finite (although astronomically small) probability that it will be emitted by any given black hole in a given time interval. Such things as boots, computers, or ecosystems have some finite probability of popping out from a black hole. The same holds of course for human bodies, or human brains in particular states."  --Parsiferon (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * (2) I disagree that the creators of vats are "irrelevant".  You are implying that Descarte's original conception was broad enough to encompass all important variants ... that's backwards at best.  Descarte should be mentioned as the originator of a concept conceived strictly as a thought experiment.  Today, we can imagine that actual experiments, often benevolent, really are possible.  In fact, we've already interfaced electronic vision & hearing systems to blind & deaf people's brains, which really constitutes a limited version of this experiment!  (Just add virtual reality.,,)  --Parsiferon (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So it's decided: NO MERGE. I shall remove the tag, if you don't mind. --ZeroGiga 15:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I do mind. I don't think anything has been decided yet. The discussion spans several months and is still ongoing. And it would take some discussion before the tags are removed. Unilateral actions promts unilateral reverts. I do not believe that any of the proponents of a none-merge have given a valid list of reasons for not merging aside from statements like "they are not the same thing" without further exposition. Also, the issue of perhaps alternate to merge with a alternate discussion section within the article that comments on the similarity has not been addressed (we might as well discuss all possibilities here). --RossF18 (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with RossF18 that no successful arguments have been given to show that the two thought experiments have distinct conceptual purposes. The point of a thought experiment is not its content, i.e. vats or geniuses (in spite of dozens of philosophy students explaining that vats need maintainers, or evil geniuses are metaphysically suspect!), it is the nature of the thoughts it is supposed to elicit.
 * If they do have distinct conceptual purposes, that would be philosophically significant, and would be bound to be written up in the literature somewhere. Hold off on removing the tags while I do a search through the Philosophers Index and other databases. You never know - the no mergers could be right! Anarchia (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick look through things I can access from home when the university system is down (sigh) suggests that the two are generally treated as equivalent by philosophers, with the exception of those who argue that the brain in a vat avoids the soul aspect of Descartes' genius - you have to be embodied to have a brain. Personally, this leads me to favour the merge proposal, because I think that this is interesting and is best captured in a combined article. But, I suspect that the no mergers will take this as confirmation that there should be separate articles. Not sure how to resolve this. I suspect that it might be best to write it up as a "no consensus". What do you think Ross? Anarchia (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * MERGE! Merge this son of a bleep. I'd suggest though that there is a section about the modern interpretations (see: brain in a vat visualization of the concept). Yadaman (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No merge Simply requires a 'see also' from both - clearly the two are related, but I found each argument sufficiently interesting to merit a separate page; doing that also helps retain clarity in the arguments - don't mix metaphors!87.102.86.73 (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Places where the brain in a vat and evil genius hypotheses are described as having significant differences
I have included every WP:RS example I found. Anarchia (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alan Musgrave, (1993) ‘’Common Sense, Science and Scepticism’’, Cambridge University Press. Argues that the evil genius argument is a precursor to the brain in  a vat hypotheses, but the evil genius is compatible with dualism, while the brain in a vat hypotheses “have a more materialist flavour” supposes that the thinkers are embodied. (p.204-5)

Places where the brain in a vat and evil genius are treated as equivalent
I have included every WP:RS example I found. Anarchia (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Alvin I. Goodman, (1986) Epistemology and Cognition, Harvard University Press. The evil genius and the brain in a vat are both forms of “rival hypothesis” argument, “sceptical arguments [that] introduce hypotheses intended to rival ordinary, external world beliefs” (1986, 32-33).
 * George Henry Radcliffe and Stuart Shanker (1999) ‘’Routledge History of Philosophy’’, Routledge. Claims that Putnam “ introduced the vivid ‘brain in a vat’ hypothesis (to echo Descartes’s ‘evil genius’) to make [his] position clear. (1999, 129)
 * Janet Radcliffe Richards, (2000) ‘’Human Nature After Darwin: A Philosophical Introduction’’, Routledge. See p. 32 She treats the two as equivalent.
 * Michael Huemer, (2002) ‘’Epistemology: Contemporary Readings’’, Routledge. Uses an argument on the evil genius to serve the same purpose for his argument that refers to the brain in a vat. (p. 588)
 * William Seager, (1999) ‘’Theories of Consciousness: An Introduction and Assessment’’ describes the brain in a vat hypothesis as “the computer stand in for the evil genius” (p. 95)
 * Jeffrey P. Whitman, (1996) ‘’The Power and Value of Philosophical Skepticism’’, Rowman & Littlefield. “Hilary Putnam updates Descartes’ ‘evil genius’ with his ‘brain in a vat’ example.” (p. 18) He then treats Putnam’s and Descartes’ arguments as equivalent when criticising them.
 * John Greco, (2000) ‘’Putting Skeptics in Their Place’’, Cambridge University Press. Greco treats  the two arguments as equivalent, see page 56.
 * Ted Honderich, (1995) ‘’ The Oxford Companion to Philosophy’’, Oxford University Press. Describes the brain in a vat hypothesis as a “[contemporary] counterpart of Descartes’ hypothesis that one’s beliefs are  induced by an evil genius” (102).
 * James K. Beilby, (2002) ‘’Naturalism Defeated?’’, Cornell University Press. Beilby aso treats the two hypotheses as equivalent: “The antecedent of such a principle would capture what is in common to situations in which (a) I believe that I have taken XX, or am a brain in a vat, or am victim of a Cartesian evil genius, and (b) I also believe that the probability of R on the condition in question is low or inscrutable…”(p. 240)
 * Clark Glymour, (1992) ‘’Thinking Things Through’’, The MIT Press. Glymour also treats the two hypotheses as equivalent. See page 185-6.
 * I have found 5 other places where recognised philosophers have had books published where they described the two hypotheses as equivalent. However, I am getting a bit bored with looking through all this information, and it is starting to feel like a waste of time I could be spending improving articles! Up to you guys now. Anarchia (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a compromise, I would suggest creating a separate section in both of the articles, with the brain in the vat article having a section titled something like "origins of the brain in the vat" concept and which would provide a brief description of the evil genius and how the brain in the vat is distinct -- again, assuming that no consensus has been reached. In the evil genius/demeon article, I'd have a section titled something like "theories stemming from evil genius" and provide a brief description of the brain in the vat and how it's distinct (the soul argument perhaps). I think this would likely be the best way to go right now, because I do not think there would ever be a clear consensus any time soon. And thank you for your excellent research. Much appreciated. --RossF18 (talk) 05:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As a side note, after we decide what to do, perhaps we could move this entire dicussion with no further changes made to one of the discussion boards so that it is not lost when or if the merge tags are removed.--RossF18 (talk) 05:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

NO MERGE Brain in a vat does not imply evil genius. A counterexample is the movie "The Matrix," in which the vat imprisoners were not human or intelligent, but machines.

This concept is part of philosophy, specifically epistemology, and has nothing to do with the morality of the gifted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwaketosleep (talk • contribs) 18:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I saw, there have been no claims that brain in a vat implies evil genius. The argument for merge is that the brain in a vat idea stems from the evil genius idea and should be in the same article. Yes, in the Matrix, the machines imprisoned humans in the vat, but while they were not human, they were intelligent and while they were not evil, they clearly were not good or nice to humans (they were quite malevolent). Also, I don't recall anyone discussing morality of the gifted. --RossF18 (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Implies" essentially means "stems from." Logically, if being a tackle means that you are on the football team, then we can also say that "tackle implies football player" and that tackles come from the football team.  In set theory, you would say that "tackles are a subset of the football team."
 * Therefore, I will state that the "brain in a vat" idea in no way stems from or is a subset of evil genius ideas or stories, because it can easily be imagined absent of evil geniuses. A brain can be in a vat because it's always been there; no good idiots, passable average joes, or evil geniuses required.
 * In the Matrix, the machines were definitely not intelligent, by any currently-accepted definition of intelligence. Machines can only be "artificially intelligent," and are incapable of evil or wrongdoing, because they have no conscience.
 * Putting "Brain in a Vat" under "Evil Genius" is a mistake. It's fine to put a cross-reference from there to here, but to make an important philosophical concept a sub-section of a fanciful sci-fi motif would not be good for the overall philosophical organization of Wikipedia.Iwaketosleep (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Any authority behind your claims? Again, no one is saying that there has to be an evil genius for there to be a brain in a vat. You're quite correct in that respect. You can just have a brain in a vat for some reason with no creator. All of a sudden, puff and there's brain in a vat with programming fooling the brain into false beliefs. Of course, who does the programming is always the question. I will also not get into the whole existentialist argument with you about whether machines can have sentience or intelligence.


 * Your claims that machines can only be artificially intelligent and are incapable of evil or wrongdoing because they have no conscience is a long argued debate that has gone on for far longer and much more extensively than we can get into here (although you stetement does imply that one has to have a conscience to be capable of evil or wrongdoing. In fact, people with no conscience are the ones capable of most wrongdoing. People with conscience will never be capable of equal evildoing to those without and will feel guilty. If you argue that machines don't feel guilty, that's fine, but doesn't prevent them from doing evil. Also, you statement that machines can only be artificially intelligent assumes that machines cannot evolve and can only go as far as their original artificial programming. Again, there has been much phylosophical debate on these topics and you should look into those instead of bringing them out here).


 * Back on point however, although evil genius doesn't have to create a brain in a vat, evil genius was the original Descartian idea out of which developed the brain in the vat idea. I did not intend to imply that one needs an evil genius to have a brain in the vat. That's not how these articles are related. The articles are related via evolution of phylosophy. First came Descarte's evil genius or evil demeon and then later on, out of those ideas, came brain in the vat. Thus the claim that Matrix gathered ideas from Descarte's phylosophies (he never talked about brain in the vat, but did talk about evil genius).


 * You say to "make an important philosophical concept a sub-section of a fanciful sci-fi motif would not be good for the overall philosophical organization of Wikipedia." Which is the important philosophical concept and which is the fanciful sci-fi motif? First, neither is really a fanciful sci-fi motif. Just because sci-fi moviemakers and authors picked up on the concpet, doesn't make it a fanciful sci-fi motif. Second, the argument here is to make the brain in the vat argument the subsection in the evil genius article. I don't know if you realize this, but both evil genius and brain in the vat are important philosophical concepts with evil genius Descartes idea coming first and then brain in the vat being sought of in the 20th century.


 * Use any terminology you want. Implies, stems from, derives from, but without Descartes idea of evil genius, you wouldn't have the brain in the vat idea that took the necessity of evil genius out of the equation. Perhaps reading the articles will help. --RossF18 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Any authority behind your claims?" Oh, are you implying that there is some authority that could possibly change your mind?  Even if I appealed to some authority, would that not be a fallacy?


 * "In fact, people with no conscience are the ones capable of most wrongdoing." So, are animals "evil" because they eat each other?  Furthermore, why do we excuse conscience-free people on the basis of insanity, if they are the *most* evil?


 * "The articles are related via evolution of phylosophy. First came Descarte's evil genius or evil demeon and then later on, out of those ideas, came brain in the vat." Yeah, and some of the Socratic and Platonic ideas came from paganism, so should we merge those, too?  If this principle were implemented across Wiki, i.e. "Any idea that stems from another must be merged with it," how many articles, total, would there be?  Would the number be double-digited?


 * "Which is the important philosophical concept and which is the fanciful sci-fi motif?" Clearly, evil geniuses are not "fiction."  Examples abound.


 * "I don't know if you realize this, but both evil genius and brain in the vat are important philosophical concepts with evil genius Descartes idea coming first and then brain in the vat being sought of in the 20th century." Firstly, Decartes came up with an "evil demon," who was not scientific, or a genius.  Secondly, if they are *both* important philosophical concepts, then they each need their own entries, Q.E.D.


 * I really think that the following two article are pertinent in this case:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Do_not_use_subpages


 * http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Why_I_am_suspicious_of_subpages

Iwaketosleep (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about Iwanketosleep? This is a discussion about the merger or these two articles, not a debate about good or evil and what constitutes evil. And yes, when I say that you should have authority, I do mean that if you have authority for your arguments that pertain to whether these two articles should be merged, I would have to read them and I would be much more likely to change my point of view as opposed to just statements without support. You said "Even if I appealed to some authority, would that not be a fallacy?" Huh? What are you talking about? What authority are you appealing too? The Wikipedia editors, God? What are you talking about? Who said anything about animals being evil because they eat each other? We eat other animals and that doesn't mean that we're evil so why would I be saying that animals would be evil. And how did you get animals being evil from my statement about people without conscience being most evil many times to talking about animals eating each other? What does people with no conscience have to do with animals eating each other? You're not making any sense. And who says that we "excuse conscience-free people on the basis of insanity, if they are the *most* evil"? I don't remember sying that and are you saying that insane people are without conscience or that people without conscience insane? And I don't think that we excuse evil deeds by insane people with or without conscience. We might not send them to prison, but they go to an insane institution, we don't excuse and let them out to go about their lives. And as far as merging articles, these two articles are directly related and while you're right that most philosophic ideas build on one another evolution wise, many times a philosophic fish, metaphorically speaking, will evolve into a philosophic dog, metaphorically speaking. So, why would you merge a fish or a dog just because they're evolutionary linked. You're right, you wouldn't. But that's not the case here. Here, you basically got a wolf in evil damoen theory evolving into a dog in brain in the vat, metaporically speaking. So, these two articles are directly and closely related and both of these articles are extremely short and thus should be merged. They shouldn't be merged just because they're related like Socratic and Platonic ideas, because they're not related like that - the relationship in this case is even closer to the point were some phylosophers used the terms interchangeably. Noone does that with Socratic and Platonic ideas. And if you insist on having two separate articles, at least read through the article and note that none of the relationship, a relationship that you never denied, is indicated in the evil dameon article. --RossF18 (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Unite under 'Skeptical hypothesis'
How about this idea? Thomas Ash (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

March

 * I've come to this late, and probably can't add much. Nevertheless, I haven't seen much mention of Dennett in the above. :) Dennett in "Consciousness Explained" distinguishes between the two thought experiments on the basis of purpose. Descartes's evil demon is trying to trick Descartes into thinking that he doesn't exist. Descartes proposes the demon to establish that his ability to doubt (or think, depending on how you read it) is not something that can be tricked. Therefore he must exist. The brain in the vat, on the other hand, isn't concerned with people's existence. Rather the focus is on the nature of experience. That aside, the bit which I find more interesting is the refutation of the the Brain in a Vat proposed by Dennett - his combinatorial explosion. As the brain in the vat is proposed to exist within the world, it needs to follow the world's physical laws (at least to a greater extent that the Demon, which need not follow any laws). Thus Dennett can attack the experiment on the basis of logical possibilities, while Descartes cannot. While I don't tend to share Dennett's conclusions, I think he has a point - by having the thought experiment embedded in "science fiction" over fantasy/mysticism he is able to emphasize other aspects of the debate, and the viability can be questioned in ways that the demon won't allow. I guess I'm just arguing that I (and, at least in the one work, Dennett) don't see the two theories as equivalent. The "I" of that part is of no real value, but maybe the "Dennett" is. :) - Bilby (talk) 07:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I forgot to mention Crispin Wright, who's also been missed in the discussion. In "On Putnam's Proof that we are not Brains in a Vat" he argues that there are more just just superficial differences between the vat and the demon. :) It's an interesting paper, if a tad heavy to work through. - Bilby (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is arguing that "the two theories [are] equivalent", just that one came out of the other one and thus should be a subsection of the other. --RossF18 (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There were a few comments suggesting equivalence above. :) In spite of the rather neat list of people who argued that they were equivalent that Anarchia provided, I'd be inclined not to use that as a justification for a merger. - Bilby (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether something is treated the same by a particular author for the purpose of making a particular philosophical argument shows just how related these two things are, necessitating the merger. Sources that you reference do not argue that these concepts are equivalent, but use the terms interchangeably because the brain in the vat idea stems from the evil demon idea. However, whether you argue that these two things are equivalent or your argue that the one stems from the other, the point is that there should only be one article with Brain in the vat being a subsection of the evil demon article. --RossF18 (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources I reference don't use the terms interchangeably at all. :) Indeed, they specifically argue that the two arguments are not equivalent, and should not be used interchangeably. I can see a case for merger, but if it is made, it is worth recalling that while brain in the vat has a historical connection with Descartes, it is not an equivalent argument, and (if you accept Dennett) does not share the same purpose - it is used to illustrate different things. On the other hand, simulated reality and the dream argument are closer in purpose (although once again not equivalent), but don't necessarily share the same derivation. It makes more sense to me not to merge, but to improve and connect the articles, so as to highlight their relationships. - Bilby (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this is roughly the same as something you suggested earlier, RossF18. If I'm reading it correctly. - Bilby (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I could get behind not merging, but improving and conncting the articles, so as to highlight their relationship. Currently, however, that's not the case. While there fairly good paragraph indicating the connection in the brain in the vat article, there is nothing about the connection in the evil dameon article. If that's remedied, I see no problem with finding a compromise. --RossF18 (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Propsed Closing the Discussion
This discussion has been going on for close to a year with no consensus, which would seem like an indication that we should keep things as is, at least for now. I propose closing the discussion and saving the talk page for future consideration on either one or both of the article talk pages. --RossF18 (talk) 23:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)