Brain in a Vat Argument (BIV) [Matrix/Inception]

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I have reason to think that stuff exists.

 

I don't have reason to think anything else does.

 

Hence, I don't think anything else exists.

[exogen]

I have reason to think that stuff exists.

 

I don't have reason to think anything else does.

 

Hence, I don't think anything else exists.

 

ok so your an ontological nihilist, meaning you think nothing exists at all?

[Shirtless Crackhead]

I don't think anything I don't have reason to think exists, exists; I don't think that's nihilism.

 

~

 

I had this interesting thought yesterday, btw.

 

If you think about Brain in a Vat, and the whole concept that "you can doubt anything except your own consciousness", I think it's bogus.

 

IF you/I/some of us was/were in a "Matrix", who's to say that yourself or others are not simply constructs of a partially aware AI program?

 

If the vat was to be convincing it would certainly be beyond any sort of computer programming we have, who's to say some "consciousnesses" are not simply part of a very elaborate vat?

 

You could argue about how we think about ourselves, by the programming could just be limited to introspection inside the program it's running in (the vat or matrix). I mean if the "Vat" can interact with the brain/mind at the level it would need to, I don't think it's a stretch to say that other "entities" within the "Matrix" couldn't just be elaborate AI programs, obviously designed to mimic the "Brain in a Vat's" behavior to an extent.

 

But, I doubt your skeptical on this angle though exogen.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Enganacious

[exogen]

I don't think anything I don't have reason to think exists, exists; I don't think that's nihilism.

 

~

 

I had this interesting thought yesterday, btw.

 

If you think about Brain in a Vat, and the whole concept that "you can doubt anything except your own consciousness", I think it's bogus.

 

IF you/I/some of us was/were in a "Matrix", who's to say that yourself or others are not simply constructs of a partially aware AI program?

 

If the vat was to be convincing it would certainly be beyond any sort of computer programming we have, who's to say some "consciousnesses" are not simply part of a very elaborate vat?

 

You could argue about how we think about ourselves, by the programming could just be limited to introspection inside the program it's running in (the vat or matrix). I mean if the "Vat" can interact with the brain/mind at the level it would need to, I don't think it's a stretch to say that other "entities" within the "Matrix" couldn't just be elaborate AI programs, obviously designed to mimic the "Brain in a Vat's" behavior to an extent.

 

But, I doubt your skeptical on this angle though exogen.

 

 

 

Your experience of empirical reality can be questioned if you think of it as being more than your experience. BIV cannot doubt the existence of your empirical experience it can only doubt that your emperical experience is more then simply the experience of it. So you might be wrong that your experience is representative of, say, a world exterior to your empirical experience and your consciousness itself, but you can't be wrong that you are having an experience in the first place. So Remember BIV is limited strictly to the experience of the 5 senses.

 

What you raise is actually a separate argument.

 

The idea that my own consciousness itself as well as my empirical experience is just a computer simulation or whatever reality you want to say is going on. After all, we only know about brains because of our 5 senses so maybe there isn't such a thing as brains to begin with one might say or any of the stuff materialists believe modern physics is talking about so maybe it's something totally different out there beyond our experience. But your going a step further to include all of consciousness, not merely questioning an empirical explanation of consciousness like BIV eventually does after it calls into question the establishment of an ontology via empirical investigation., your saying, for all we know our consciousness and all our experience might not be "real" but could really be_____and you fill in the blank with whatever description you want, be it a computer, another brain, or anything else you can imagine.

 

You are getting at the idea that our consciousness might not actually be our consciousness because it might be something else. You are making an ontological argument of skepticism.

 

Again, that is different then BIV but it is an argument none the less from skepticism about our consciousness not being our consciousness but something else entirely. So what I concider as "I" and everything else in my experience is just "in here" is just an illusion, for all we know.

 

Is that what you are getting at?

Edited April 22, 2011 by exogen

[The Talentless]

So today my philosophy teacher made us watch the Matrix, and then he used the term "like a brain in a vat."

I proceeded to laugh at that point. He even did this very energetic encompassing hand motion when he said.

 

Beyond that, none of my classmates had anything constructive to say about the philosophical aspect of the movie. Which was also funny.

Edited September 8, 2011 by Jackson Lacey

[exogen]

So today my philosophy teacher made us watch the Matrix, and then he used the term "like a brain in a vat."

I proceeded to laugh at that point. He even did this very energetic encompassing hand motion when he said.

 

Beyond that, none of my classmates had anything constructive to say about the philosophical aspect of the movie. Which was also funny.

 

from what you said do you think that it was a failure of the professor, being that he brought up the argument of "brain in a vat" in lieu of the Matrix, or am I missing something here?

 

Btw the important ideas gathered from the BIV hypothetical can be deduced from other, less fanciful and more straight forward arguments.

[The Talentless]

No one cared to comment. The movie ended and he literally went "Any comments or questions on the philosophical aspects of the movie?" No one said anything for a long 3 minutes.

The reason why I was laughing was the I never expected to hear Vats in real life coming from someone such as prof. Knight.

[Shirtless Crackhead]

inb4 exogen goes off the handle with, THIS R SRS.

 

Also,

is stupid, no matter the "possible".

[exogen]

No one cared to comment. The movie ended and he literally went "Any comments or questions on the philosophical aspects of the movie?" No one said anything for a long 3 minutes.

The reason why I was laughing was the I never expected to hear Vats in real life coming from someone such as prof. Knight.

 

Well I don't actually believe that anyone's brain is inside a vat. However all that argument along with others like it is doing is showing that the way in which we normally think about the world does not rest on any firm philosophical foundations.

 

Many people throughout history in different cultures have believed in all sorts of things ranging from one end of the idea spectrum to the other and many in today's culture would find those peoples ideas silly and even downright ridiculous but that doesn't make anyone right or wrong does it?

 

hopefully I can explain it in a way that doesn't seem so silly sounding to you.

 

The argument is basically saying this. We know about the world of our experience through our five senses. We clearly see that this world is interactive but that's about all we can say. The idea of us living in a material world or whatever notion you want to bring to the table actually isn't validated by our experience because we can always reinterpret our experience as being something else. The reason for this is that all of these ways of looking at the world are definitions or interpretations that are meaning ascribed to our experience. We can always attribute new meaning to our experience. Our experience is just the raw ostensive interaction with the world. Trying to answer the question of what the world is, is basically saying that our experience is an appearance and reality is below it, kind of like the surface of the water looking like the surrface with its mirroring capacity actually being moved by currents that run beneath the water. So for all we know we could be in the matrix or maybe there is a material reality but we don't know because we have this assumption that our experience is in some way something else. Why else would people ask questions like "what is the ultimate nature of reality" unless they didn't think they were looking at it? BIV is just pointing out that those that think that the answer, if there is one to the assumption of that question, can never be answered by way of direct experience. Another way to explain it is to point out that there is no validation that our senses are telling us the truth about the information we are receiving.

 

Personally I think the assumptions that frame the problem are completely wrong. The conclusion of the problem is correct, if you accept the assumptions. The problem is that if you take the view that all of your experience is reducible to some more fundamental element of reality you will slip right back into the problem again. If you reject that assumption that your left with pure experience being reality. That is the view I take for a number of reasons.

 

I think the real issue people have with the argument is they don't see any practical significance to it whatsoever.

 

I disagree with this and think it is our notions of reality as being imagined in our heads as being something other than the pure experience that itself is not practical. If you study philosophy you start to see how ideas have real impact on culture and on events and actually have a real effect on history. Just because you can't see the implications doesn't mean they aren't there.