[MD] moq thought experiement 1.

[squonkmuse at talktalk.net]

Hi Ian and David,
I don't want any trouble.
I am not having fun at David's expense or trying to make anyone appear foolish, if that is possible.

Kitty kat lovers in the scientific world don't worry about Schrodinger's cat do they?
As a kitty kat lover, i feel sorry for the little guy myself, but it's not happening.
squonk

Hi Squonk & DMB,

Squonk, the "point" of your though experiment no doubt concerns the static
(patterned) and/or dynamic (unpatterned) quality of any pre-linguistic
experience (or lack of it) in human infants. You've said as much already.

You seem to be agreeing (with DMB) that this is a "developmental psychology"
area, a much previously studied subject by both relevant anthropologists and
philosophers. Be nice to develop that ?

You agreed with me much earlier that earlier, much recorded, brain-in-a-vat
thought experiments, also considered brains deprived of sensory experince,
but went on to suggest that such though experiments had not considered the
"moral" angle - hence your own thought experiment. (I'm not so sure you're
right there - but I digress).

So, Squonk, could you adddress DMB's expressed "stunned" concern, that
whatever the "point" of the hypothetical thought experiment the practical
idea of various sensory deprivations of human infants (brains of real living
humans) is itself morally "suspect" to begin with. Like, Duh ! Obviously.
Sorry to ask. I expect you are deliberately having some fun with DMB, but if
you don't address his point, you would accept that it is getting in the way
of the rest of the thought experiment being taken seriously ?
"Schroedinger's Cat" doesn't sound like addressing the question to me.

Or I could just "get me coat".
Fascinating either way. Suspending disbelief if OK by me, BTW.
Ian