How would this be possible ? So the lone brain is not an argument for this , brain-in-a-vat, concept . I get it Hmm...if true , then why can we question or ask the question , of whether we are or not a computer program ? This to me is the puzzle , how is it that we can think beyond the program ? Haven't grasped this . Say again in different words .
But somehow we can reason about being a brain in a vat. How convenient. I don't need to prove that I am a BIV. I can pretend it's possible, but I've no reason think it actually is. I doubt that brains can entertain anything. You'll have to demonstrate that. Or are these brains in vats different to our ''virtual'' brains? There's no need, we'll just go off on a tangent. I believe ''I am'' a soul who possesses a bodily form (including a brain) making me person. Can brains do what you think a brain in a vat does? How can you know anything without knowing something? How do know? I take it you must know, otherwise you wouldn't state it because you only start from a position of ''not knowing things''. ''I'', ''mine'', ''my''? Who or what is it that possesses these things? Why could it? Can't you think of a better solution? Or can't ''the brain in a vat'' think of one? Hence you cannot know anything with any amount of certainty. You cannot have a self (according to you) because you think it possible that you may be a brain in a vat. So ou cannot have any real knowledge. Have I? Better put me back on track then. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Because you believe you could be a brain in a vat. jan.
Poor Jan. You're tying yourself in semantic knots there. Convenient or not, we're doing it right now! You claim to know you're not a brain in a vat. Therefore, you do need to prove that you are not a brain in a vat, or at least give some kind of plausible argument in favour of your position. It's fine for you to privately believe whatever nonsense you like, of course, but you've come into a public forum here and made a claim. My assumption is therefore that you are willing to discuss the matter and try to convince me that you are right and I am wrong. If that's an incorrect assumption, I have to ask what you're doing here. You're still (dishonestly?) blurring the distinction between what is a fact and what is possible. You don't have to pretend anything to admit the possibility. Your pretence lies in your claim to having knowledge that you don't have. That is, you claim something is a fact, but continue to provide nothing to back up your claim. Do you agree you have a brain? Can it think about things? If so, it would seem that your brain, at least, can entertain things. But let me know if you discover you don't have a brain, or you can't think. If you are a brain in a vat, your brain is the brain you're using right now to read this post. I don't know what you mean by "virtual brain". Do you think that having a soul makes it impossible that you are a brain in a vat, then? I'm not sure what you're asking. We're talking about your brain here. You tell me what it can do. ??? I have no idea what you're asking. It doesn't relate to anything I've said, as far as I can tell. How about we deal with discussion first, before we get into the meta-discussion? The question we are addressing here is: can you know you're not a brain in a vat? I say you can't. You say you can. After we've sorted that one out, then we can ask about how we can know that we know that we're brains in vats, or whatever. Baby steps, Jan. Me. Didn't I explain this sufficiently in my last post? Are you just knee-jerking and not reading the whole post before you shoot off a reply? No. Can you? I'm not so sure about that. Certain things in the local reality seem to me to be reliably knowable. As to the wider reality, of course you're right. If you are a brain in a vat, the brain is you. You ignore this each time I say it. Why is that? Already tried that. Didn't you read the whole post before replying? Was there something you didn't understand there? And so...?
Why? Do I also have to prove that I'm not in New York as I type this sentence, in England? What claim? I am a human being capable o conjuring up BIV scenarios, instead being a BIV conjuring up human scenarios of being BIV. I know which one is nonsensical, and it's not the former. It good fun playing mind games, but don't take too seriously. Okay? Why don't I have knowledge? Because I maybe a brain in a vat. I'm not. If you think that scenario is anything other than a human construct, then it's for you to demonstrate. I think about, and entertain things with the use of my mind, and brain. Note in the mind experiment, a mind is necesserry to connect the brain to a computer. Neither the brain nor the computer are capable of doing it. Unless of course you add that in. You're not gonna are ya? I don't have a soul, "I am'' a soul that possesses a body. I don't know if a BIV is possible. I would say it's best to wait until they start producing them so we can make informed judgements instead of speculation. But if I'm not a brain in a vat, are the virtual brains in the imagination scenario like real brains, or not? My brain does what it does, I'm talking about the conjured up mind game brains. Let's say you want to know how and why water is wet. Do you think it is possible to find out without any knowledge of wetness and/or water? Do you think it's possible that your en-vatted brain is making you believe that you can't know that your brain in a vat? Or maybe there are only a portion of the population who are BIV's Did it occur to you that your explanation wasn't sufficient? Then we are left with... Why could it? I don't know what you mean by that. I don't think we are our bodies. You should know that by now James. So you must believe it is possible you can't know anything, with any degree of certainty. The sceptics sceptic. jan.
??? How would it be possible to post a topic to a subforum in the Fringe section? The BIV scenario can feature only one brain in a vat. But the other people it viewed and interacted with would thereby not have minds or be more akin to chatbots slash sophisticated window dressing. Deception is an inherent part of life / world or the "internal story" of our experiences. We strategically fool each other frequently, we dream and have hallucinations, and experiments reveal that our normal perceptual states are susceptible to a variety of illusions. We can see things which don't even exist anymore, like a star that exploded long before the light of that catastrophe reaches us thousands of years later. The very fact of an object's existence having to be represented by information that is conveyed across space and over time by _X_ inter-medium introduces a mechanistic relationship and the first stage of an interpretative chain of filters vulnerable to multiple conceptions. So an idea like radical skepticism is bound to develop or fall out of that. In turn we have knowledge of computers and virtual reality, brains in vats, etc to plug into the empty placeholder. No matter what era it is, it's usually the seizure of a thing / situation known or entertained in that time. For Zhuangzi it was a dream / butterfly; for Plato the metaphor of the cave of shadows; for Descartes a manipulative demon. IOW, it's usually not something selected which is unfamiliar to the human population. And it doesn't always revolve specifically around radical skepticism; sometimes it's a dichotomy of a concrete world apprehended by the senses and an abstract domain apprehended by intellect. Does a cartoon character like Elmer Fudd really have a brain and thoughts / experiences simply because he outwardly behaves as if he's conscious when he speaks and pursues Bugs Bunny with a shotgun? Now carry the superficiality of those moving "appearances" of a cartoon over to a dream which an actual person named Jane is having. Even though there are additional properties like a 3D virtual environment and Jane's grandmother interacting with her in a conversation, does that dream version of her grandmother truly have its own distinct mind behind that simulated facade? Note that I'm referring to the above in commonsense terms of cartoons being products of animation studios and dreams being fictional concoctions of a sleeping brain. Not in the context of any eccentric beliefs in which one is literally visiting an alternative cosmos when having dreams or watching cartoons. Now, if the puzzlement instead stemmed from this: Note that it's the scenario in which there is only one brain / vat being fed with pseudo-sensory input (not a reciprocally inter-connected community of many brains / vats). Thus the "other humans" perceived are just sophisticated props like the non-living objects. IOW, what would be the point of using "real" brains in vats to begin with if human bodies and consciousness could instead be digitally simulated in microscopic detail? The other people and objects would still correspond to electronic activities in whatever vast network of computers is producing the virtual world being transmitted to the brain, so (again) they're not totally unreal or imaginary in that respect.
Hmmm... In post # 161 , about the ability to think outside the program . That's the thing . We can and do think outside the computer program . How is that possible ? The computer program should limit ones thinking to thinking within the program its self . But it doesn't . Which means that the program has limits . Therefore leads to the conclusion that we are NOT in a vat at all .
To the extent that in a BIV scheme relying on digital simulation, the brain wouldn't be part of the computer(s) feeding it pseudo-sensory data of a virtual world. The latter would be part of the "program" as well as the other simulated people. But not the brain in the vat which was being supported by its own biological / neural substrate rather than the electronic substrate.
CC , we are aware , we question , we can and do think outside the program , no matter how you put it .
Jan Ardena: I understand now. Your objection to the idea is a religious one. A matter of faith. I don't think there's much else to discuss, especially seeing as you're repeating yourself and continuing to make empty assertions without adding anything new. So, we finish where we started, I guess. I'll still respond to your post, though I'm not expecting anything new to come of it. If that was a matter of dispute, then yes. To me, the question whether you are a brain in a vat or the human you believe you are is a more interesting than the question of whether you're in London or New York. I'm content to accept your claim that you know where you are (in your local reality, mind you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). I'm not content to accept your claim that you know you're not a brain in a vat, because you don't know that, and it fact there's no way you could know. The claim that you know you're not a brain in a vat, of course. What do you think we've been discussing? Neither one is nonsensical. You haven't made any argument to support the claim that the idea is nonsense. In fact, basically all you do in this thread is make empty assertions like this one. Whatever floats your boat, Jan. You can't have that knowledge, for the reasons I have explained at length in several previous posts. How could you possibly tell the difference between being a brain in a vat and not being one? There's no way to distinguish the two situations, from your point of view. Hence, you can't know which (if any) is right. Empty assertion. The scenario is a human construct. All ideas we express are human constructs. The idea that the dots on the screen that make up these words you're reading have meaning is a human construct. That doesn't mean they don't mean anything. Like I said earlier, it is clear that you believe in a dualism in which the "mind" is somehow separate from the "body". I notice you say a mind is necessary to connect a brain to a computer. But you have a mind, don't you? So, in principle, it would be possible to connect your brain to a computer. Right? I mean, your brain connects to your body. What's the difference? How does this soul of yours interface with the brain that controls your body, exactly? Would it be possible to interface with a brain in a vat in a similar way? If not, why not? Neither do I. That means we don't know. See? Maybe they have already produced one, and you're it. "Like" in what way? You're not conjured up, are you Jan? (Or are you?) So, if you're a brain in a vat, then that brain is not conjured either (well, probably not. There's no way to be sure.) Why would it occur to me to ask about the wetness of water at all if I had no knowledge of water or wetness? To compare: I do have an awareness of vats and brains, and I am able to combine the two concepts and start my investigations based on that. Undoubtedly, if I am a brain in a vat. Just as yours is making you believe that you can know. Maybe. There's no way to tell. What more do you need to know? Because the mechanism would work in the same way that the brain normally controls the arm - using nerve impulses and the like. All that would be required is some additional wiring or wireless connection to transmit the signals a bit further than "normal". After all, we're assuming, for starters, the brain is in all respects a normal human brain, merely with its sensory inputs re-wired and connected to a computer, or perhaps to a remote real body - the distinction isn't terribly important, I don't think. Consider an example. Can you know that the screen you're reading this on exists in your local reality? I say you can. You believe it exists, that belief is justified in that you can see my words on it and take meaning from them, and that it is a fact, in your local reality, that your screen exists. But if you're a brain in a vat, there need not be a "real" screen made of real LEDs and glass and so on. All that is necessary is that the brain is given the same impressions it would usually get from a "real" screen. In the "wider" reality outside the "simulated" reality that your brain experiences, you can't know things, mainly because any knowledge of that wider reality can't be justified in your local reality, even if it is true. I understand. You think that a soul is required to make a body "go", and without a soul a body would be like an empty shell. It's a common idea that religious people have, and an idea that is an obviously useful one for religions to promote. It lets people think they are partly supernatural, and allows for all kinds of comforting notions, like life after death. Does this idea somehow prevent you from being a brain in a vat, though? If so, what exactly is the problem? About the "wider" reality? Yes. Eye-opening, isn't it? In practice, as I have said, I live my life without worrying about it. There's no point, especially since (a) I can never know if it's true or not, and (b) because it makes zero practical difference to my experience of life. In these respects, it's like a lot of fundamental philosophical questions.
You don't seem to get that I'm agreeing with you (as far as the context of this particular scenario goes). A kid playing a computer game where s/he's manipulating one of the characters is outside the game decision-making wise, with the game also having to adjust to her choices (but still constrained to the rules and nature of what the games allows). It's a situation roughly analogous to Kant's dual epistemology and practical philosophy of the 18th century, which depicted us as having free will on the noumenal side of one's self as opposed to the mechanistic determination on the natural or phenomenal side of one's self. Many critics never understood it, and even today with this kind of technological metaphor now available, that's probably still largely the case. In essence, a "transcendent will" could be said to be converted into the system by which the natural world operates so that any super-external influences are hidden or encoded in those conventional, causal appearances.
Jan: Maybe we can clear this up quickly. Do you say "I know I'm not a brain in a vat" because you believe that "I" is fundamentally a soul? Would you also say, therefore, "I know I'm not a brain in a human body"? And would you also say "I know I am a soul"? A couple of additional questions: If souls can't be in vats, can they be in bodies? Where is the soul usually located, exactly?
True , I don't Noumenal, is the interesting thing here . defined on line as ; Kantian philosophy ; a thing as it is in itself , as distinct from a thing as it is knowledge by the senses through phenomenal attributes . Which means that the super-external influences are in control .
True , I don't Noumenal, is the interesting thing here . defined on line as ; Kantian philosophy ; a thing as it is in itself , as distinct from a thing as it is knowledge by the senses through phenomenal attributes . Which means that the super-external influences are in control . Which means that a computer , in modern terms , is behind the scenes. So I disagree CC. Since one has the ability to question , then these ; super-external influences are non-existent.
The "transcendent will", though, is either part and parcel of the natural, causal, world - i.e. indistinguishable from it in essence and merely a label for, say, an emergent property from the natural - or it is distinct. Using the computer game analogy, if the game's universe was modelled such that every particle, atom, quark etc operated according to fixed laws, then the "input" from the player into the game would be distinguishable: it would be identifiable as an external agency that is causing the particles, atoms, quarks to do things contrary to their programming. E.g. Significant elements within the game would have to be programmed with an "IF external agency THEN do what agent wants ELSE act naturally". There need only be a few key elements that have this line of code as the rest would then flow from this through the otherwise natural process. Anyhoo - on the matter of solipsism, it is entirely consistent with the sole brain in their own unique simulation, and often the BiaV is the way it is explained to people to get them to start thinking of the idea. But at the moment the discussion is rooted firmly in getting people to even acknowledge the possibility of it, irrespective of whether that possibility is useful, practical, meaningful etc.
JamesR, as soon as someone starts going down the path of "well, it's not technologically possible to have a BiaV" then they have clearly not understood the experiment. The technological possibility that they are referring would clearly only refer to what they know of the local reality, whereas who knows what the technological capability is in the wider reality in which the brain is in a vat. In fact, if we are a BiaV then necessarily that wider reality has the technological capability. I'm not sure I've seen someone struggle so much with this notion of being a BiaV before. Especially in this world of improving immersion in the world of gaming. Maybe the inability to comprehend is simply a psychological defence mechanism against what might damage their status quo?
On what basis do you assert this? It is a truism that if we are a BiaV then the technology exists in the wider reality to allow it. What we see as being technologically possible or not within our local reality would be irrelevant. So please, on what basis do you assert that being a BiaV is fundamentally not possible?
Because we are aware of the possibility . Since that is true , why would bia-v, allow this to happen ?
Why wouldn't it allow it? What does us knowing about it being a possibility mean for the BiaV or for the wider reality at all, given that we can never know whether it is true or not. Imagine you are in a closed room, no way out, no way of breaking through a wall, and you know that it is impossible. But someone then says that there's a possibility that behind the wall is paradise, a paradise you know you can never reach. Another alternative is that there is nothing outside the walls. But again, you know that you can not find out which is true, if indeed either of them are: it could be a fiery hell, a realm of nothing by marshmallow, another room etc. So how does knowing about what might possibly be on the other side of the wall impact us while we also know we can not leave the room? No, river, our knowledge (while we are in the local reality) of possibly being a BiaV is irrelevant to whether or not we actually are a BiaV (in the wider reality).
