Speaking as a an envatted brain I have the illusion of being able to wander about in some 'reality' beyond the vat. Do vats have legs? - for the purposes of the OP I don't think they do. So the reality I/we perceive is generated by some external intelligence/program. The external generator might fit Jan's definition of a God - maintaining the vats (probably) takes some resources and 'care'. Closer to my intended point is that the only difference between the invat world and the outvat world is the assumption that the outvat world is generated by an external intelligence/program while the invat world is generated by an intelligence/program inside the vat. In particular, if we find a God inside our vat this is not just 'real' but probably more 'real' than anything that goes on outside the vat.
I would assume in either case that the world is generated from the outside. In the envated case, the only thing in the vat other than the brain would be the terminal ends of life support and sensory systems, the bulk of the system hardware would likely be outside the vat. I agree that if God was found inside the vat (in the mind of the included brain), the externally supported image of that god would be as real as any such vision imagined outside the vat.
The inner self, which is the center of the unconscious mind, will notice things the ego is not aware of. Most people assume there is only one center of consciousness. They will not know there is another POV that will have problems with aspects of the simulations. The brain in the vat will appear to the ego, but will not totally engage the inner self the same way since much of the energy economy of the inner self needs to flow through the hard wires of the sensory systems. The simulation can't use direct sensory input since this would be too complicated and need hardware for each brain in a vat. They will use the frontal lobe to fool the ego. The inner self will not be fooled. S
You can stop your sexual harassing fantasy now. I only said there would be no causal connection to anything real, assuming it had always been envatted. Since you and Baldeee have had to specify newly envatted (tacitly agreeing with my always envatted argument), I seem to have made my point. And now that you're arguing a newly envatted brain, it's intellectually dishonest to expect my always envatted argument to be a complete account of the newly envatted. Since I've already explained how the newly envatted brain has no causal connection to itself (and you've yet to show otherwise), you're just arguing a strawman of my previous always envatted argument, misapplied to the newly envatted. In case you didn't understand, the always envatted case is just a simpler example that illustrates that there is no causal connection to the thing referenced. It's just easier to demonstrate the lack of causal connection for the always envatted, but the exact same reasoning holds for a causal connection for the newly envatted reference to its own brain. I'm not disputing that an envatted brain could interact with the real world. I'm saying that, even if viewed its real brain (via real world interface), it could never refer to that as its own brain. You must demonstrate how it could in order for your argument to have any credibility. Replication is not causal connection, because it does not constitute knowledge unless the referrer is aware of the connection between real and replicated.
I'm not sure how you intended this, but it sure sounds like you're saying that it is as easy refute Jan as it is to shoot fish in a barrel.
Yep. I've said from the beginning that Jan would be right, if he had the proper justification for his claim. I haven't seen one, so I can only assume people enjoy shooting fish in a barrel or mocking people or something. Certainly, it can't serve as any kind of intellectual exercise.
You're correct a BIV can't know anything beyond it's functional purpose. But "I" can, and so can you, which is why you know a disembodied brain cannot know its position. My knowledge isn't based on faith as I have no hope of not being a BIV. What senses are involved with self-awareness? Jan.
Of course a BIV can "know things beyond it's functional purpose" - just as you can know things beyond your functional purpose.
"I" am not my brain. The give away is the "my". "My" brain belongs to me. Your foundational principle may be consistent with the notion that there is nothing to no better than matter. That consciousness is a property from/of the brain. Jan.
Your sense of identity resides in your brain. You are, of course, free to define any other part of yourself as "part of you." To reiterate, a BIV can "know things beyond it's functional purpose" - just as you can know things beyond your functional purpose.
Yes, yes, we get it. You claim that you're a magical "soul-spirit" and that your brain isn't responsible for your mind. Therefore, you claim, you can "just know" stuff using your magical soul-spirit magic. If it wasn't, then if you took away the brain the consciousness would persist. And yet, there's no sign that it does.
You being kidnapped and held captive in a basement as a sex slave was necessary to rationalize a simulated existence of lifelong captivity in a confined isolated area. Your identity as a sex slave mainly establishes the reason for you captivity, and presumably distinguishes you from your real world identity. And the reason the subject is based on you is because you initiated the argument. What better way to understand the proposition than to be cast as a player in it. Sexual slavery isn’t a fantasy of mine, it's an unfortunate reality. Allegedly it takes place here in the US as well. I doesn’t matter whether the brain was always or newly envatted, what does matter is how the simulation is employed in regards to interaction between real and simulated worlds. Drawing on my original example, newly envatted sex slave Syne could have instead been born into sexual slavery as always envatted sex slave Syne, and raised in the secluded confines of a basement, where the activity in that environment would be his only interaction with the simulated world. With the use of simulated communication devices, and real world manipulation and sensory technology, always sex slave Syne would have been capable of forming relationships with real world people and things from the onset of his envatment.. The basic neurological process of thought begetting thought in all brains, envatted or not demonstrates causal connection to themselves. And then there’s the physiological feedback between brain and life support that could be inherent in the biology of the vat, where the brain could decide to hold its breath, thereby inducing an intentional state of unconsciousness. I imagine most real people live their entire lives without ever personally viewing the contents of their skulls. Does that imply that there was no causal connection to the real brains they must have possessed? Since you weren’t satisfied with my earlier example let’s try another. A real world surgical robot presents a tight image of the envatted brain. If the robot camera pans out, a simulated image of a skull opening is incorporated into the image, but the image of the brain remains actual. This careful real time editing allows for the actual and the simulated to seamlessly coexist. Electrical probes are then applied to elicit a response from the target brain. The subject is able to view this real action on a monitor while the procedure is preformed in the simulated environment, and when the real probes are activated, the subject accordingly senses the neurological response. The result is a real brain, witnessing and sensing real action associated with that brain, while still maintaining a simulated identity. If I make a copy of a photograph of my cat, does it matter as far knowledge content whether I view the original or the copy? If sex slave Syne sees an actual image of his brain presented in a mirror generated in his simulation, isn’t the knowledge contained in that image equal to the original?
What is it that senses the identity? "I" can know things beyond the functional purpose of the brain. "I" can recognize that I have a brain, not that "I" am a brain. The envatted brain can only process the data that is being fed to it. It is the observer (the "I", the "self", the "soul", "me", etc...) that makes sense of what is being processed. jan.
You take away the brain, the body ceases to function, hence it is dead. I accept that is what you see, and due to not seeing the subtle body you claim the person who this body, is no more. That's your fundamental principle, your starting point. Do you acept mine? jan.
A gestalt of the various parts of your mind that you perceive as "you." Exactly. And that is true whether you are in a vat or a body.
No, it's sexual harassment and trolling. And you continue it, even after being told to stop. No means no. Continuing sexual harassment. I agree, it doesn't matter if newly or always envatted. But you tried to apply my argument to the always envatted's inability to reference anything in the real world as if that magically applied to the newly envatted. Since I never made that argument, it is a strawman. And all this arm waving fails to address the fact that you have not shown how the newly envatted could possibly have a causal connection to reference his own brain. Are you that obtuse or is this just another red herring? How many time do I have to say "causal connection to reference" for you to not equivocate simple, physical causal connection. It is ridiculously trivial that a causal connection exists between thought and brain. But that's not what is at issue here. The issue here is knowledge, and whether the envatted can refer to his own brain at all. Having any old thought is not a reference to your brain. Who said you had to "view" your brain to reference it? I can reference my brain because I can feel it, like when I get a headache, and my point of view gives me the impression that my center of thought resides behind my eyes. In the real world, these are sufficient, but in a simulation, these impressions would not coincide with your physical brain. So the envatted could only reference the simulated brain, that he perceives to be behind his eyes. Tricking the envatted into believing what he thinks of as his brain is the same as his real brain doesn't change the fact that his reference to his own brain would only coincidentally be his real brain. He would possess no knowledge that there is any difference between real and simulated brains, so to him, it is always his perceived, simulated brain. You talk about being "cast as a player", but you don't seem capable of taking the simulated perspective. Continued sexual harassment. Does a Photoshopped image equal the original? How do you know an image is not Photoshopped unless you have access to the original? It is trivial that you know it's a copy if you are the one making the copy, but the gedanken does not allow the envatted to know, much less make, the simulation.
That I "perceive as me"? I think that explains it perfectly. Can't be, unless you presuppose that the physical manifestation is all there is. Jan.
Sure it can be. Your brain will be capable of knowing things beyond the functional purpose of the brain whether you are: -100% natural -a drug user who uses drugs to alter your brain chemistry (antidepressants, sleeping pills) -someone with prosthetic limbs/eyes/organs/ears -someone with neural implants that allows you to still use your arms, or to still walk -someone with a neural implant that allows you control a different body as if if were your own -someone with a neural implant that allows you to experience life in a simulated environment All the above is true whether your head is attached to your body or not, and it's true whether your brain is in your skull or not. The common link is your brain.
Can you elaborate? In the way a diesel car engine knows when you have filled up with petrol. Is it it the brain that knows, or the person who wills. Again it is the "someone with a neural implant" that knows, not the brain. The brain processes the data and the "someone" makes sense of it. No it's not mate. Jan.
