User:Nootiebeans/Brain in a vat/Bibliography

Bibliography

edit

This is where you will compile the bibliography for your Wikipedia assignment.

  • Brueckner, Anthony. “If I Am a Brain in a Vat, Then I Am Not a Brain in a Vat.” Mind, vol. 101, no. 401, [Oxford University Press, Mind Association], 1992, pp. 123–28, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2254123.
    • [1]
    • This source shows a different perspective on the concept that Putnam's BIV argument is self-refuting, this source can be used in the argument from incoherence section of the article because it provides a different point of view on how different philosophers have had different takes on the concept of BIV being self-refuting. Here in this source Brueckner points out how the concept of Putnam's BIV argument being self-refuting can be resolved.
  • Forbes, Graeme. “Realism and Skepticism: Brains in a Vat Revisited.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 92, no. 4, Journal of Philosophy, Inc., 1995, pp. 205–22, https://doi.org/10.2307/2940923.
  • Brueckner, Anthony L. “Brains in a Vat.” The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 83, no. 3, Journal of Philosophy, Inc., 1986, pp. 148–67, https://doi.org/10.2307/2026572.
    • [2]
    • This source can be used to add onto the section within the BIV article that mentions argument from incoherence. Within that section of the article, it mentions how Putnam tried to argue that the statement "I am a brain in a vat" will always be incorrect due to the concept that a "pure" brain in a vat could never refer back to "real" brains or vats, therefore the claim that "I am a brain in a vat" is false. This source builds upon Putnam's argument and tries to better establish Putnam's argument by adding more premises and to try and establish a better route for the conclusion to be more plausible.
    • This is one of the earliest suggestions of reconstruction, and more details on the reconstruction of Putnam's BIV argument can be added and found.
  • Hillary Putnam, Brains in a Vat
    • This source is already cited on the article, but a piece that I will be referring back to is the concept of casual connection to provide more background on Putnam's argument about why it is not possible for a brain in a vat to say that they are a brain in a vat. Due to the fact that there is no causal connection between the usage of "brain" and "vat" with "real brains and vats." This will add upon what has already been written in the article.
  • Wright, Crispin. “On Putnam’s Proof That We Are Not Brains-in-a-Vat.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, vol. 92, [Aristotelian Society, Wiley], 1992, pp. 67–94, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4545146.
    • [3]
    • This source provides another take and reconstruction of Putnam's BIV.
  • CHEN, Jiaming, and Zhang Lin. “On the Issues of Transcendental Argument.” Frontiers of Philosophy in China, vol. 7, no. 2, Brill, 2012, pp. 255–69, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44259404.
    • [4]
    • This source mentions the usage of Transcendental Argument by Putnam
  1. ^ a b Brueckner, Anthony (1992). "If I Am a Brain in a Vat, Then I Am Not a Brain in a Vat". Mind. 101 (401): 123–128. ISSN 0026-4423.
  2. ^ Brueckner, Anthony L. (1986-03). "Brains in a Vat". The Journal of Philosophy. 83 (3): 148. doi:10.2307/2026572. ISSN 0022-362X. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Wright, Crispin (1992). "On Putnam's Proof That We Are Not Brains-in-a-Vat". Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. 92: 67–94. ISSN 0066-7374.
  4. ^ CHEN, Jiaming; Lin, Zhang (2012). "On the Issues of Transcendental Argument". Frontiers of Philosophy in China. 7 (2): 255–269. ISSN 1673-3436.