7 thought experiments that will make you question everything

[rangerrebew]

PERSONAL GROWTH — FEBRUARY 15, 2023

7 thought experiments that will make you question everything
From "Thompson's violinist" to the "Experience Machine," these thought experiments will throw your mind for a loop.

Credit: Annelisa Leinbach

KEY TAKEAWAYS
Thought experiments provide a platform to examine abstract concepts in a playful and imaginative manner.  The best thought experiments challenge our beliefs and offer fresh perspectives on how the world operates by presenting hypothetical situations.  These hypothetical situations are often constructed in extremes so we can see how certain ideas might play out — all without suffering any real-world repercussions.

Scotty Hendricks
 
This article was first published on Big Think in April 2018. It was updated in February 2023.

Thought experiments are among the most important tools in the intellectual toolbox. Widely used in many disciplines, thought experiments allow for complex situations to be explored, questions to be raised, and complex ideas to be placed in an understandable context. Here are seven thought experiments in philosophy you might not have heard of, complete with explanations of what they mean and what questions they raise.

Swampman
Written by Donald Davidson in 1987, this thought experiment raises questions about identity.

Suppose a man is out for a walk one day when a bolt of lightning disintegrates him. Simultaneously, a bolt of lightning strikes a marsh and causes a bunch of molecules to spontaneously rearrange into the same pattern that constituted that man a few moments ago. This “Swampman” has an exact copy of the brain, memories, patterns of behavior as he did. It goes about its day, works, interacts with the man’s friends and is otherwise indistinguishable from him.

https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/seven-thought-experiments-thatll-make-you-question-everything/

[Kamaji]

Interesting ....

[massadvj]

"If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you”

I am probably alone on this board in my agreement with this proposition that a child in the womb has no rights, at least until the point of viability outside the womb.  But what is interesting here is that the feminist who proposed this seems to be rejecting the "my body my choice" argument. A fetus, having separate DNA from the mother, is clearly not part of the body of the mother.

[Kamaji]

"If he is unplugged from you now, he will die; but in nine months he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you”

I am probably alone on this board in my agreement with this proposition that a child in the womb has no rights, at least until the point of viability outside the womb.  But what is interesting here is that the feminist who proposed this seems to be rejecting the "my body my choice" argument. A fetus, having separate DNA from the mother, is clearly not part of the body of the mother.

Well, the bigger flaw in that hypothetical is that, except in the limited case of rape, the woman doesn't just wake up one morning and find that another being has been attached to her - she knowingly and voluntarily engaged in the acts that are a necessary predicate to finding herself in that condition.

In other words, the hypo would be better written as if the woman had signed up with the Society of Music Lovers to be a potential life-support provider for any needy musician, and had gone so far as to have the necessary ports and other connections surgically implanted in preparation for the possibility.

If she then woke up to find herself attached to the violinist in question, it might be a bit of a rude awakening, but she could not say that she was completely surprised by the result, because she knowingly and voluntarily put herself in the position where ending up that way was a real nontrivial risk.

When stated in the obvious way, it more or less undercuts most of her argument.

[massadvj]

Well, the bigger flaw in that hypothetical is that, except in the limited case of rape, the woman doesn't just wake up one morning and find that another being has been attached to her - she knowingly and voluntarily engaged in the acts that are a necessary predicate to finding herself in that condition.

In other words, the hypo would be better written as if the woman had signed up with the Society of Music Lovers to be a potential life-support provider for any needy musician, and had gone so far as to have the necessary ports and other connections surgically implanted in preparation for the possibility.

If she then woke up to find herself attached to the violinist in question, it might be a bit of a rude awakening, but she could not say that she was completely surprised by the result, because she knowingly and voluntarily put herself in the position where ending up that way was a real nontrivial risk.

When stated in the obvious way, it more or less undercuts most of her argument.

Excellent point.