Yes, and you also acknowledged that your knowledge of such things has a limit.
i.e. "as far as you know"
Is that true?
jan.
Yes, and you also acknowledged that your knowledge of such things has a limit.
i.e. "as far as you know"
Jan Ardena:
Are you going to post your proof that you're not a brain in a vat?
Is that a "no" then, Jan?
There's no getting through to you, is there?There'sn o need to to prove it. It is true, you know it and I know it.
On the contrary.There's no getting through to you, is there?
There's no getting through to you, is there?
Ah well, never mind. Maybe you'll think it over later and come to appreciate why you're wrong. My posts will still be there.
There's no getting through to you, is there?
Ah well, never mind. Maybe you'll think it over later and come to appreciate why you're wrong. My posts will still be there.
It's a pity that some people can't bring themselves to say "You know, I never really thought about that before. Thanks for letting me know about that." or "I don't think I'm entirely convinced by what you said, but it's been an interesting discussion." or "You're right. Now that you have put it that way, I realise that there is no way to prove I'm not a brain in a vat, after all."On the contrary.
On the internet, there is no such thing as explicitly conceding a debate.
Concessions come in the form of non-answers such as "I don't have to prove it".
Its pretty clear you've gotten through.
The point is: that brain in a vat that I'm talking to wouldn't automatically know that it is a brain in a vat.Let's say you go into laboratory and you see a brain in a vat, would you ask it how it knows it is a brain in a vat, and not a human being involved in a discussion? No you wouldn't.
As far as you can tell, you're human. You said that yourself. But you can't know that. Understand?What am I wrong about?
Am I a human being or not
Well this is part of what's interesting about this philosophical thought-experiment.It is only because you ARE a human being why you have the capacity to imagine that you could be a brain in a vat.
The point is: that brain in a vat that I'm talking to wouldn't automatically know that it is a brain in a vat.
Say, for example, that the sensory apparatus of that brain was connected to a sophisticated robot that the brain controlled. The robot would walk around, and look at things, and hear and smell and feel and all that. The brain in the vat would believe that it was the robot. It would have no perception of its existence in a vat.
In exactly the same way, you have no perception of your "self" as a brain encased in your skull. You might imagine that you have a brain encased in your skull, and so on, but you have no direct perception that your brain is you.
Can you say that you know for sure that your body is being controlled by you, as a brain-in-your-skull, right now?
Would you be able to tell the difference between that situation and the situation that you believe actually pertains - i.e. that your brain is actually in your head?
bear in mind that, in this thought experiment the "brain in a vat" is merely a device to help you visualise the kind of situation being described.
As far as you can tell, you're human. You said that yourself. But you can't know that. Understand?
For practical purposes, it obviously makes zero difference to your life whether your brain is in your skull or in a vat somewhere else. You act as if you have a brain in your head. No perception that you have says otherwise. But the perceived state of affairs need not be the actual state of affairs.
No perception that you have says otherwise. But the perceived state of affairs need not be the actual state of affairs.
What does it mean to be a "human being"?
In fact, when it comes down to it, your brain is in a vat. You call that vat your head. What you're quibbling over here is an argument over where the vat is located - something that you can't actually be sure of.
I know because of the reasons I already explained. The brain's only sensory inputs come from outside the vat. How could it possibly know it was in a vat?How do you know?
How do you know this? You keep dodging that question.I know I'm a human being, you don't according to you.
Repeated assertion does not make an argument. I have given you my argument. Your task is to refute it, if you can. Mere assertion that I am wrong counts for nothing, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.I'm not a brain in a vat.
Why wouldn't it? What possible difference could there be?Would the relationship between the Android and the world be exactly the same as the relationship between a human and world. If yes can you explain how you know it would?
It doesn't much matter whether you consider it a thought experiment or a consideration of the real state of affairs. The argument is the same in both cases.So this is a thought experiment. Okay.
The person helping you is me, in this instance. However, I could be a brain in a vat myself, for all you know. Or I might just be a part of your perception via a simulation. Or whatever.Would the person helping me, be me, or another being?
There's no reason to suppose that you suddenly lacked the capacity to think independently. You're still you, even if you're a brain in a vat.If it is another being, and it wrote my programme. Would that other being actually be me?
If the controller was you let's say. And you programmed my perception. Wouldn't I be acting out your program, seeing , feeling, saying what you want.
Wouldn't that be you?
I'm not sure at this point whether you're now confusing the word "device" as meaning some kind of physical mechanism with "device" as in a rhetorical device useful for putting a particular philosophical argument to you. I meant "device" in the latter sense, not the former, in case you're confused.If the brain in vat is merely device to help me visualise. Who is 'me'?
Or to put it another way who and what is the "you"?
I understand that you claim to know that you're not a brain in vat. You haven't told me why you think you know that. Do you intend to, or are you just going to keep asserting it?But I do know. Do you understand?
I think you're probably going to have to specify what you mean by "human being" now.How could it be that I am not a human being?
In what sense? I'm sure I have an inkling of what it might be like to be other than I am. As far as direct experience of being other than what I am, of course I don't have that. Nobody does. Nobody can.Do you have any hinkling of knowledge, or experience of what it is like to be not what you are not (assuming you believe yourself to be human)?
How could they be different?How do you know the experience will be the same? Or do we have to pretend that experiences and perceptions will be the same?
See above.Could it be true that I am a human being, and the brain in a vat idea is nothing but a mind experiment?
Obviously, assuming I am a human being. ;-) But what of it?Do you have experience of being a human being?
How do you know?The brain is in my head. I know.
No you don't, and I have explained why you don't at some length.I'm not quibbling, you are. I know I'm not a brain in vat
No. That's your belief.That's reality.
Well, I have, more than once (I sort of thought I was beating it to death), but I will provide the quote again:Dave,
you said...
'Yes, and you also acknowledged that your knowledge of such things has a limit.'
...I asked if it is true that I acknowledged the limitation had a limit.
Can you answer that? Or at least explain why you are refusing to?
"As far as you know" is an acknowledgement that what you know has a limit.There are two options. My brain is in a vat, or it isn't. As far as I know, it isn't.
You presume to know reality.The brain is in my head. I know.
I'm not quibbling, you are. I know I'm not a brain in vat, and so do?
That's reality.
Once again Jan has demostrated sheer mastery and control of the direction and focus of the thread.You presume to know reality.
You presume to be more than human then. You presume to be infallible. You presume to be a god.
I know because of the reasons I already explained.
Repeated assertion does not make an argument. I have given you my argument. Your task is to refute it, if you can. Mere assertion that I am wrong counts for nothing, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.
Why wouldn't it? What possible difference could there be?
It's not up to me to try to demolish my own argument. If you want to do that, you'll have to put in some mental effort of your own, I'm afraid
I think you're probably going to have to specify what you mean by "human being" now.
The person helping you is me, in this instance. However, I could be a brain in a vat myself, for all you know. Or I might just be a part of your perception via a simulation. Or whatever.
There's no reason to suppose that you suddenly lacked the capacity to think independently. You're still you, even if you're a brain in a vat.
I'm not sure at this point whether you're now confusing the word "device" as meaning some kind of physical mechanism with "device" as in a rhetorical device useful for putting a particular philosophical argument to you. I meant "device" in the latter sense, not the former, in case you're confused.
If by "human being" you mean an integrated flesh-and-blood being with a localised brain, then I have previously explained exactly how it could be that you aren't that.
In what sense? I'm sure I have an inkling of what it might be like to be other than I am. As far as direct experience of being other than what I am, of course I don't have that. Nobody does. Nobody can.
How could they be different?
See above.
How do you know?
No you don't, and I have explained why you don't at some length.
No. That's your belief.
You presume to know reality.
http://sciforums.com/threads/was-li...-an-evil-designer.157174/page-12#post-3418679You haven't given any reasons, you simply shift the goalposts to continue your game.
But I have given a coherent argument, in the posts linked above. You refuse to acknowledge it, but that's your problem, not mine.Stop saying you've given an argument, when you cannot possibly give a coherent argument. It is a mind game nothing more.
That's one of the issues I have raised with you. In fact, that's the important philosophical issue raised by the whole "brain in a vat" idea. What is "I"? What is "you"?Are you saying you are your brain? Or what?
See the posts linked above, where my argument is set out in enough detail. I have told no lies.You don't have an argument. Stop lying.
Your argument in this thread, so far, boils down to this:Jan Ardena said:No I don't. You're a human being.James R said:I think you're probably going to have to specify what you mean by "human being" now.
"Me" and "I" are terms I use to refer to myself. I could, in principle, be a creature of flesh and blood typing on an internet connection, or I could be a computer simulation, or I could be a brain in vat. My claim is that you can't know which of those I am. Possibly you have some argument that you could make on the topic of my being a "human being", but if so you haven't make it yet.Elaborate on what is the "me" and "I" in this context?
Quite the opposite. If you're a brain in a vat, then brain-in-a-vat is your identity.You said "...you're a brain in a vat.
It seems you are saying I have a separate identity to the brain in the vat.
Yes. If you're a brain in a vat, you're a brain in a vat. You say you aren't. But why?That said, I cannot be something that I am not. Do you agree?
Let's not. Quibbling over silly tangential points is just a tactic to try to avoid addressing the content.Let's look at the definition of 'device'.
And by that you mean ... what?I mean what you are. A human being.
A brain in a vat could think it was a human being, and while believing that it could still consider the possibility that it was a brain in a vat, for the reasons I gave in previous posts (linked above).So you're existence is all you know. You're existence as a human being is the reason you have the capacity to think it is possible that you are a brain in vat.
That proves you are what you are and are not what you're not.
In saying that you are a brain in a vat, I'm identifying "you" with the brain in the vat. You say you know that you cannot be identified as a brain in a vat, but you have so far given no actual reason why you think you know that.If you assert that "you" are a brain in a vat, you are saying that either you are the brain, or you are independent of the brain meaning you are not a brain in a vat, but controlled by the brain in the vat, or some intelligent being . Which is it?
How do you know I'm a human being?You're a human being. Work it out yourself.
Good for you. How do you know that you're not a brain in a vat?Yes I have confidence in the truth that I am a human.
It's not my fault that (a) you choose to avoid addressing most of the substance of my posts, (b) that you refuse to answer direct questions I have put to you, answering instead only with questions of your own, (c) that you repeatedly assert that you know things without ever saying how you know them.
That's one of the issues I have raised with you. In fact, that's
the important philosophical issue raised by the whole "brain in a vat" idea. What is "I"? What is "you"?
As I said previously, at some point you'll have to put in some mental effort yourself, Jan, if I am to take you seriously in this conversation. You'll have to actually actually address what has been put to you, and perhaps even - shock horror - tell me what you think (as opposed to merely asking rhetorical questions). That's if you actually have any opinions or thoughts on the topic.
1. I, Jan, assert that I am not a brain in a vat.
2. I, Jan, know this, absolutely, without a doubt.
3. The reason I know this is that I am a human being and not a brain in a vat.
"Me" and "I" are terms I use to refer to myself. I could, in principle, be a creature of flesh and blood typing on an internet connection, or I could be a computer simulation, or I could be a brain in vat. My claim is that you can't know which of those I am. Possibly you have some argument that you could make on the topic of my being a "human being", but if so you haven't make it yet.
Quite the opposite. If you're a brain in a vat, then brain-in-a-vat is your identity.
You claim you are not a brain in a vat, and therefore that your identity is something else.
You claim you are not a brain in a vat, and therefore that your identity is something else.
But you have done nothing so far but to repeatedly assert that you somehow know this absolutely. You refuse to say how it is that you know. Why is that?
Yes. If you're a brain in a vat, you're a brain in a vat. You say you aren't. But why?
And by that you mean ... what?
You have just ignored all of that and you're back to making empty statements again. Why is that? Do you agree with any of the options I put to you? Do you have a different option of your own to offer? Or have you got some issue with actually answering the question honestly?
See, I think that what is really going on here is that you know you can't "win" this argument, and you probably were vaguely aware of that at the start, when you got yourself into this mess.
In saying that you are a brain in a vat, I'm identifying "you" with the brain in the vat. You say you know that you cannot be identified as a brain in a vat, but you have so far given no actual reason why you think you know that.
For example, you, as a brain in a vat, have all the usual sense that you have a physical body that walks around and sees things and eats and sleeps etc.
If you decide to walk to the shops, then in that sense the "you" as the brain in the vat is controlling something that generates the sense impressions of you walking to the shops.
How do you know I'm a human being?
Good for you. How do you know that you're not a brain in a vat?