Addendum to: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/brain-in-a-vat.158342/page-6#post-3420272 A standard for judging a possibility to be deeply useless might have to focus on the possibility's origins, and it having a substantive reason for why it would be of practical service to any group (as either regarding it as only potentially being the case or if cognitively holding it to literally be the case). Dreaming is our first and inherent encounter with simulated reality, and thus it's arguably the inspiration for many if not most BIV type proposals throughout history (Zhuangzi's butterfly story directly recruited the oneiric medium). Such a category of possibilities also caters to a context which we're routinely familiar with in everyday life: "Am I being fooled or deceived by such and such?" Certain technology has also been influenced by that category, if its first developments were not outright triggered by fascination with it. In contrast, an arbitrary concoction like "There is a cat-sized, iridescent gumbo monster in a lab chamber whenever no observations or verifications are being carried out" is just that: It's haphazardly invented and not significantly provoked by either circumstances native to our common experiences or existing traditions. As well as not stimulating the kind of interest and argued benefits that a non-facetious belief could be founded upon. And thus both deniers of it and agnostics about it also being engendered in reactionary response (i.e., the kind of possibility or belief which attracts a crowd). This however, does not exclude "cat-sized iridescent gumbo monster" having minor usefulness as a gimmick device in a particular instance of intellectual acrobatics. Perhaps only psychotic ramblings and gastrointestinal noises can be contended to be completely, philosophically useless. As for possibilities like ghosts (the general idea of ghosts and not specific claims of a ghost which could be testable), when they are not banished by the presets of an ideological or methodological view (within the latter's jurisdiction)... They are apparently elements of historic and lingering societal customs. Which is to say, the proposal of ghosts is not random and spur of moment, without stimulus or motivation, without historical precedent. And even when they're misconceptions of observed events, the idea of them thereby nevertheless plays a role in some people's intermittent thoughts and experiences. In addition to the origins, "reasons" for belief have been built around them, albeit skeptics outside the subculture would dismiss such as unjustified, inconsistent, etc. Immanuel Kant once addressed the practical value of keeping a supersensible category around (a la the ancient Greeks) purely as a refuge to project ideas with contended useful purposes upon; or when such was seemingly entailed by the very nature of a long-held popular concept, right, etc. However, this practical perspective did not include supersensible possibilities blatantly intruding upon the regularities of the empirical world (metaphorically akin to the geek designer of a computer game appearing before a crowd of the game's characters and performing undeniable miracles before them). "But as will be shown, reason has, in respect of its practical employment, the right to postulate what in the field of mere speculation it can have no kind of right to assume without sufficient proof. For while all such assumptions do violence to [the principle of] completeness of speculation, that is a principle with which the practical interest is not at all concerned. "In the practical sphere reason has rights of possession, of which it does not require to offer proof, and of which, in fact, it could not supply proof. The burden of proof accordingly rests upon the opponent. But since the latter knows just as little of the object under question, in trying to prove its non-existence, as does the former in maintaining its reality, it is evident that the former, who is asserting something as a practically necessary supposition, is at an advantage (melior est conditio possidentis). For he is at liberty to employ, as it were in self-defence, on behalf of his own good cause, the very same weapons that his opponent employs against that cause, that is, hypotheses. These are not intended to strengthen the proof of his position, but only to show that the opposing party has much too little understanding of the matter in dispute to allow of his flattering himself that he has the advantage in respect of speculative insight. "Hypotheses are therefore, in the domain of pure reason, permissible only as weapons of war, and only for the purpose of defending a right, not in order to establish it. But the opposing party we must always look for in ourselves. For speculative reason in its transcendental employment is in itself dialectical; the objections which we have to fear lie in ourselves. We must seek them out, just as we would do in the case of claims that, while old, have never become superannuated, in order that by annulling them we may establish a permanent peace."--CPR
I am aware of all this but the point is, again, in the fringe section even the speculation of paranormal events or ghosts is suppressed or dismissed as rubbish. Yes, i know this is a thought experiment. Even in the fringe section, it is obvious at times that it is also a thought experiment, the naysayers show their true colors being adamantly against it or askong for proof, otherwise shouldnt be speculated on even and mocked.
One also need patience to read through this long threads that rehash the same things over and over...
Where is the mere speculation in the fringe section and not actual claims of existence? it is those claims that are dismissed until such time as convincing evidence supporting their existence is presented. Remove thy chip, birch. Please provide links examples, please. Not saying you're wrong, but would like some evidence of what you claim. Also, regarding tarot cards: do you believe in freewill? Do you believe in predestination? in fate? Do you believe that our paths are set out for us and that we merely walk along it?
Why is the first one true? Why is the second one false? What is the standard of knowledge you use to justify anything to be impossible, let alone this claim? I'm sorry for the questions, but I'm trying to understand how you can know these things, but any knowledge claim to the contrary cannot be known. jan.
Jan Ardena: No. And for the reasons behind this answer, see my detailed explanations of the scenario earlier in the thread. Is this line of questioning supposed to lead somewhere, or is just another time-waster on your part? The fact is: you don't know you're not a brain in a vat, contrary to your claim. You're not making any progress towards defending your position.
Jan: Saying "I may be a brain in a vat" is merely saying that something is possible. Lots of things are possible. As a general rule of thumb, it's probably a good idea to assume that something is possible unless a good reason is given for thinking it might not be possible after all. On the other hand, saying "I'm not a brain in vat" is saying something is certain - beyond doubt. Not many things are certain beyond doubt. As a general rule of thumb, it's probably a good idea to assume that nothing is certain unless you there are very good reasons for thinking they are certain. The problem in your case of claiming to know that you're not a brain in a vat is that you have given no good reason sufficient to justify that knowledge claim. It is probably safe to assume that you believe your claim. But it is not justified, and there's no particular reason to suppose that it is, in fact true. Therefore, you can't know it.
Saying ''I am not a brain in a vat'' is merely appealing to the fact that you're not a brain in a vat. So we have two contenders: a) Lots of things are possible, one of those things are ''I may be a brain in a vat''. b) I am a human being experimenting with ideas, one of those ideas being ''I may be a brain in a vat''. Which one's more likely to be true? The truth. I'll let you work that one out. That is your general rule of thumb. Not mine. I am certain that I'm not a brain in a vat, and so are you. That is the reality. You seem to forget that this is simply a game, and as no bearing on reality. The only reason it sounds as if I have to claim it, is because it has brought up, and used as an argument about what we know. I don't mind playing the game, but it must stay as a game, occupying it's role in reality, as a mind experiment. Nothing more. jan.
Jan, I'm beginning to wonder how much of an attempt you do at processing before you ask questions. Not sure if it's a laziness, or if it's a ploy to wear out your opponents by never getting past a certain point in a discussion. I'd like to see you do a little more work before simply asking more questions. Because of the word "may" (our axiomatic, internal logic of 'may'). It merely states that both options are possible. Which is true - unless it can be shown that at least one is not. Because it is making a falsifiable assertion without evidence. The only way it can be accepted as true (our axiomatic, internal logic of 'truth'), is if it can be proven so. And it hasn't been. birch did not see the distinction between a possibility (I might not be a BiaV) and an assertion (I am definitely not a BiaV). Exactly! The only things we can claim to be impossible are things based on our axiomatic, internal logic. It is "impossible" for 1 to equal 2 only because we have defined that 1 and 2 are not equal.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
Why is it true that it is possible?. Has the possibility been proven to be true Is it therefore true that we may not be a brain in a vat? The very reason you can entertain such a notion as 'we may be a brain in a vat'' is due to the fact that you are a human being. Do you agree? Or do you think that the brain in the vat may cause you entertain such a notion? Then where is the evidence that you may be a brain in a vat. So it is more, or just as likely, that a brain in a vat is causing these sensations, than a human being able to concoct such a notion? I'm afraid the problem lies with you, believing the idea to be more than a mental exercise. What does that mean? How do you know this is true, and not something fed to you? If you seriously believe we may be a brain in a vat, then you don't know anything. Truth itself cannot be real. jan.
So . . . . . assuming one MAY (or may not) be a 'Brain-in-a-vat" anyone care to speculate on 1) How your brain came to be in a vat? and 2) Whose vat is your brain "in"? All of this discussion seems (IMHO) to beg the similar issues of yea or nay on whether all is mere chance following certain natural physical laws or there exists an intelligent designer. We are (as the group: humanity) unable (with or without faith) to determine which is the actuality/reality for each of us. Does it really 'matter'? As Popeye once (reportedly) said: "I yam what I yam" . . . not too far removed from (reportedly said by God): "I am that I am"
BIV isn't even tenable as simplistically exemplified in old sci-fi flicks. Usually it's best taken as one of multiple, particular / concrete tokens that can be plugged into the abstract placeholder of a global skepticism template. BIV may have its issues. For instance, it repeats the same type of world, reality, or provenance at a higher level. Thereby opening the door to endless repeats (situation akin to nested Matryoshka dolls). That's a kind of no-no which mimics the scheme of the homunculus argument or fallacy. What makes _X_ possible should be something very different rather than a repeat of _X_, so as to stop the regress. The global skepticism placeholder recruits a particular plug-in like BIV purely for the purpose of getting off the ground or introducing itself; it's not in itself about a lengthy detour of dealing with any peculiar problems which may stem from the choice of plug-ins. However, this thread could arguably be about BIV specifically, rather the general or abstract contention it serves as a concrete option for.
Because that's how we define possible. One can't logically declare something is impossible unless one can demonstrate how it is not possible. 'Impossible' is an assertion that attempts to place restrictions, and therefore requires defending. 'Possible' does not place restrictions. No. Of course. Definitely do not agree. 1] Any sufficiently intelligent entity can entertain such a notion. There is no reason for it to be exclusively human. 2] Being a brain in a vat and being a human being are not mutually exclusive. BiaV does not "cause" anything, any more than I "cause" my brain to think something. There need be no evidence of something being possible. God possibly exists, despite there being no/insufficient evidence. You're still thinking they are separate things. Perfectly played. Brings it around full circle. Lack of evidence means it is just a mental exercise. Which is what we've been saying all along about your belief in God.
If ''something being possible'' is true, then how can there be no evidence for it? You are causing your brain to about BIV, yet there is no brain in a vat. But there is you. How is it possible that you could be a BIV, beyond simply thinking that it is possible? If you think it possible that you could be a brain in a vat, then you cannot know anything at all, including whether it is possible to be a brain in a vat. If you believe it can be possible for you to be a brain in a vat, everything you say is pointless. You can't know anything. jan.
Oh NOW I get what the problem is. You have faith that you are not a brain in a vat. You are unable to accept the concept that your experience of reality is indirect. You cannot prove it, yet you assert it nonetheless.
No. You have faith that you're not a brain in a vat. The fact that I can have faith at all, is but one reason why I know I'm not a brain in a vat. If you're a brain in a vat, then you're typing gobeldigook. If you don't think you're typing gobeldigook, then you don't accept, at all, that you're a brain in a vat. Normally when you ask atheists to prove their assertion that God does not exist, or there is no evidence that God exists. They usually come with the excuse ''you can't prove a negative'' followed by some silly examples. Here you are now claiming a negative, and claiming I cannot prove a positive. Dave, do you think anything can happen? jan.
What is your thinking behind this? Why do you think that having faith negates the possiblity of being a brain in a vat? Why do you think a brain in a vat would type gobeldigook? Why could the simulation in which the brain is immersed utilise the same language as the brain normally understands and uses? Do you not see a difference between accepting (on a practical level) something and there being a possibility that the something is true? Think of something that you do not think actually exists, other than as a concept in your (or other peoples') head, for which you have no evidence. Now, please prove that the thing does not actually exist, or that there is no evidence of that thing actually existing? I don't think DaveC is claiming a negative. He is claiming a possibility. Possibilities exist unless they are impossible. Can you show that being a brain in a vat is impossible? You, however, are claiming a positive, that you are certainly not a brain in a vat. And yet you can not provide any evidence for it that is not also consistent with you being a brain in a vat. The same would be true of an atheist who asserts that God does not exist: they would be unable to prove their assertion, and would / should be held to the same criticism. But most atheists here do not make such a claim, and are actually agnostic, although at a practical level they live life as though God does not exist, much as we all live our lives as though we are not brains in a vat. If we are a brain in a vat then within our local reality we are bound by the rules of the simulation, until such time as the simulation ends. Then who knows what might happen. If we are human then we are bound by the rules of our universe. So no, I wouldn't think that anything can happen.
This brain in its jam jar is dropping out. Lost the thread, if there ever was one. Leaving before I loose will to live Will crawl out jam jar and slither to next pillow case. Will ponder if I want candles on my next birthday cake.
Jan Ardena: But that's not an established fact. That's the fact you need to prove to justify your knowledge claim. Who knows? How are we to judge which option is more likely? What criteria are we to use to make a rational judgment on this? The whole point is that you can't be sure what "reality" is. You think you know. You claim to know. But you don't know, can't know. You're going around and around in circles, apparently trapped in the error you made right at the start. Who says it's a game? And what is at stake for you if it's not a game? This seems important to you. I am quite serious, actually. There is no way you can know that you aren't, in fact, a brain in a vat, as described. In reality. And just emphasise once more: I'm not saying I believe you are a brain in a vat. But it's a real possibility. Having had some training in mathematics and logic, I tend to be wary of uncautious use of the word "proof", and in fact tend to reserve that word for mathematically or logically rigorous proofs. Virtually nothing in science, in that sense, is "proven". I have put an argument forward in this thread as to why you might be a brain in a vat and also be oblivious to that fact. The possibility is there unless it can be ruled out somehow. And this you have failed to do. In fact, you haven't even started trying to rule it out. You're stuck in the denial phase, continually asserting that the possibility is not there, with nothing to back up your repeated assertion other than your own faith that such a thing is impossible. No. A brain in a vat can entertain any notion you can entertain - especially if the brain in the vat is you. You seem to be suggesting a kind of Cartesian duality between the brain-in-the-vat and "you". It follows that you also probably believe (and I think this is clear from past posts) that you hold this view in general: that "you" and your body/brain are separate. This is a view commonly held by religious people. It fits very well with the notion of the immortal soul. But there's quite of lot of suggestive evidence and argument against the idea, that most religious people are not aware of. In your experience of computer simulations and the like, for starters. You are aware, for example, that it is possible to create somewhat realistic virtual worlds right now, using computers. It is a small and plausible conceptual step from that kind of evidence to the idea of simulating a more complex virtual world with advanced technology. How are we to judge what is more likely? Precisely. Understand now?
