- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep; inconclusive as to whether this need to be merged or not, but no one aside the nom is asking for deletion. The need to merge, if any, should be talked through on article talk page(s), but not in this venue. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 22:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Brain_in_a_vat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
This article is identical to at least other 4 articles on the philosophical paradigm of simulated reality. only this one not even trying to add anything new, written in a child like way and repeat even it self. it could link to the Dream_argument or evil demon. yet I believe it is completely redundant.
- Delete or merge as reffernce. I can make up new arguments of this kind such as "The dream God is having" or perhaps "Brain in a Jar", and write repeatative nonsense 5 pages long. or 6. --Procrastinating@talk2me 17:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with the others and redirect. --Selket Talk 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Simulated reality per above. We really don't need duplicated articles. Hut 8.5 18:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- weak keep - Dennet has me convinced for now that this is a useful thought experiment separate from others. I don't like the idea of merging any of the "4 articles" into each other, simulated reality is already a long and laborious read, and Brain in a vat seems notable. Smmurphy(Talk) 07:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Having read several philosophical books, I can say that most philosophers address this experiment separately from the problem of the dream argument or the evil demon. Remember, this argument is a 20th-century philosophical argument - one developed in a field distinct from Simulated reality or the other articles cited above. Note that the concept is novel enough for inclusion in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is certainly more restrictive than Wikipedia is. Simfish 07:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter how you name the philosophical musing on the problem, it's a matter of fashion really, I can bring up other enyclopedias where they were more fond of the dream argument. they are basically the same phenomenon. --Procrastinating@talk2me 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, merge or redirect. If the nominator's only concern is that the article is redundant, why are we on AfD? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Mentioned on the "Today" programme this morning. Lewis Wolbert hadn't heard of it, but I shouldn't be surprised if he turned to this article in brushing up for the debate this evening. Brain in a vat is related to but different from Simulated reality, evil demon, dream_argument and similar topics. Plus it features in my novel (as do other simulation arguments) pmcray
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.