my brain almost died figuring this out and i still can't.
1 comment:
Anonymous
said...
Hahaha geez I haven't seen this since.. forever?
The experiment is about semantic externalism, which revolves around the concept of perception I think.
Semantic externalism: something is defined by external factors not involving the "definer".
Oscar and Twin Oscar, despite being completely identical, define water differently because their worlds referred to different terms as water. Oscar cannot determine himself if water is not H2O but XYZ coz he duzzan know how water came to be known as water in the 1st place and he duzzan know that in another world, water is XYZ. Thus he perceives water as H2O coz the environment defines it so (and he cannot contest it), not himself internally. Twin Oscar, vice-versa.
The common argument is that both Oscars' internal mental perception are shaped differently. Oscar perceives the concept of H2O while Twin Oscar perceives the concept of XYZ. Thus the difference in definition is a result of them 'thinking' differently, hence an internalist conclusion.
1 comment:
Hahaha geez I haven't seen this since.. forever?
The experiment is about semantic externalism, which revolves around the concept of perception I think.
Semantic externalism: something is defined by external factors not involving the "definer".
Oscar and Twin Oscar, despite being completely identical, define water differently because their worlds referred to different terms as water. Oscar cannot determine himself if water is not H2O but XYZ coz he duzzan know how water came to be known as water in the 1st place and he duzzan know that in another world, water is XYZ. Thus he perceives water as H2O coz the environment defines it so (and he cannot contest it), not himself internally. Twin Oscar, vice-versa.
The common argument is that both Oscars' internal mental perception are shaped differently. Oscar perceives the concept of H2O while Twin Oscar perceives the concept of XYZ. Thus the difference in definition is a result of them 'thinking' differently, hence an internalist conclusion.
That's how I interpreted the thing XD.
Post a Comment