Talk:Brainstorm machine
Add topic | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||
Some Goofy Links
[edit]Just wanted to mention that some hypertext links for "brainstorm machine" on the wiki link to the Daniel Dennett article, while at least one other links to this... stump? While it's genuinely informative to keep this summary of the Brainstorm Machine thought experiment up, it'd be more helpful if it was either embedded in his biographical entry *or* linked to this specific entry more consistently. Just saying. Good articles in general, keep up the great work everybody. 172.220.5.243 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
Except...
[edit]But if, after we hooked up Person A and Person B to the machine and calibrated it, we hooked up Person A and Person C, we might still find a difference and then know different qualia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.66.48 (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- The "fidelity" of the machine is the issue here, as there would be no way to validate the accuracy of the machine's depiction in an objective way. Dennett is arguing that, if the machine's image were deliberately altered, Person A would not be able to distinguish the true quale from the distorted one, thus returning us to the original problem the machine was designed to solve.
- Spade6179 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)