Wallbanging in thought

Joe wrote:
If the following two, self-contradictory cracks do not count as the type-specimen of sheer lunacy, then nothing expressed could rise-to this unadmirable peak of lunatic perfection:

JoshingThySelf wrote:: They're not actual experiments--THEY ARE THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, you pompous prig.

JoshingThySelf wrote:: Thought experiments exist. They are experiments in the form of thought.

actual: 1. existing in act or fact; real.

imaginary: 1. existing only in the imagination or fancy; not real; fancied.

1. (To Josh) Non-actual things exist.
2. The Roman god Jupiter is a non-actual thing.
3. Therefore, the Roman god Jupiter exists.

Whatever are "not actual experiments" are not experiments. A thought about an experiment is not an experiment. Whatever is "not an actual wombat" is not a wombat. A thought about a wombat (or a human masquerading in a costume as a wombat) is not a wombat.

If - in my mind alone - there are thoughts about an experiment (which cannot be an actual experiment), then what sort of an experiment is it? Imaginary, unreal, fake, phony, fictitious, etc.

Ernst Mach:

"A thought experiment is an imaginary experiment."

A thought (or thoughts), pertaining to an experiment, is not an experiment. To confuse a thought about an experiment with an experiment is a Rylean category mistake - in spades.

Wittgenstein - from Philosophical Grammar:

"A thought experiment [gedankenexperiment] comes to much the same as an experiment which is sketched or painted or described instead of being carried out. And so the result of a thought experiment is the fictitious result of a fictitious experiment."

A sketch or a painting or a description of an experiment is not an experiment. To confuse a sketch or a painting or a description (of an experiment) with an experiment is a category mistake.

Einfühlung wrote:: thought fig newtons exist. they exist in the form of thought fig newtons. let's rephrase into another sentence. what is a thought? it is a brainwave, correct? those are physical things (brainwaves that is).

Brainwaves (thoughts associated with experiments) are not experiments. Brainwaves (thoughts associated with Fig Newtons) are not Fig Newtons. Brainwaves (thoughts) are neither experiments nor Fig Newtons. To confuse a brainwave with an experiment (or a Fig Newton) is a category mistake.

A person who imagines that he's performing an experiment does not perform an experiment. A person who imagines that he's detonating a fusion bomb does not detonate a fusion bomb. A person who imagines that he's swallowing cyanide does not swallow cyanide.

Ah, regard a refreshing Wallbanger -

nekhbet

JoshingThySelf wrote:: They're not actual experiments--THEY ARE THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS, you pompous prig.

Substituting "Wallbangers" for "experiments".

Joe wrote:: They're not actual Wallbangers--THEY ARE THOUGHT WALLBANGERS. you pompous prig.

Suppose that - in my mind, I imagine that I fill 7 highball glasses with ice cubes, pouring (3 parts) vodka to (6 parts) orange juice into each of the glasses. Then - after vigorous stirring, I float (1 part) Galliano in and garnish each glass with an orange slice and a maraschino cherry. Should I imagine - further - that I guzzle all 7 of the Thought Wallbangers (within 5 minutes), will I get plastered - independently of my thinking that I am plastered?

Whatever is "not an actual" Wallbanger is not a Wallbanger. Whatever is "not an actual" experiment is not an experiment.

Experiments - like Harvey Wallbangers - require mind-independent conditions - which only the world provides for them to yield data, or - in the case of Wallbangers, to make people barfing-blotto.