''Not at all''? Are you kidding me. the link you sent me illustrated nothing about proving one is a human being. It is an experiment devised to ''...draw out certain features of our ideas of knowledge, reality, truth, mind, consciousness, and meaning''. I don't have to prove that I'm a human being, the fact that we are corresponding in the way that we are, proves that. I merely have to show that I can have knowledge that I am a human being, and there fore not a brain in a vat. To do so I must show that I have knowledge independant of any mental condition I may be in. In my dreams, 1+1=2, the colour red is red, I may still have a fear of heights. These are indicators that logic, math, uniformity, morals, fear and so on, are still what they are whether I am awake or asleep. So if I can have knowledge of the reality that exists regardless of my conditioning, I can have knowledge that I am not a brain in a vat. jan.
No it does not. At best you can say that, within the context of your local reality, you are a human being. It speaks nothing of what may be the case within the wider reality. The majority of claims to knowledge that you have professed are with regard the local reality. This is fine, in that when we use the words "I know X" it is with regard to the local reality. But this discussion aims to put us in the context of a wider reality, namely the BiaV, where such things as being human may not be consistent between the wider and local realities. While one could argue that some things might indeed remain consistent between the local and wider realities, being a human being may not be one of them. So if you could show that there is knowledge you have independent of any mental condition, the applicability of this to you being human, or the vast majority of our local reality, would still not be there. I have no fear of heights in my sleep, yet I do in reality. It's one of the ways I sometimes know I'm dreaming. And when I hit the lucid state I can fly, change things at will etc. Only for a short time as I generally wake up soon after. Not necessarily, and it would be for you to prove that you can have knowledge of everything (or at least that you are not a BiaV) regardless of conditioning. Being able to know one thing regardless of conditioning is not proof that you can know everything, or even that you are not a BiaV.
At this point reality is how we perceive it. If we are corresponding in this way, it means we are human, regardless of the whether or not we are a BIV . The point is to show that I am not a BIV and in order to do that I have to be what I perceive myself to be and work from there. But knowledge is. If I have knowledge regardless of my condition, I can know that I am not a brain in a vat, simply by knowing what ''I'' am. Knowing that I am not a brain in a vat would be one thing, not everything. Because you perceive it to be so, or make stipulations that you think make the idea that it represents everything, is not my concern. We both come into this experiments with presuppositions, and I've yet to declare mine. jan.
This would be local reality. It is indeed hot he reality by which we lead our lives. But this is a philosophical discussion and it raises the possibility of their being a wider, more objective, reality, and it is in the context of the possibility of there being that wider reality that your responses are being taken. If all you are going to do is restrict yourself to contemplation of the local reality then you really should not be engaging in the discussion. To do so would be dishonest. Like playing rugby, picking the ball up and running, when you know that the game actually being played on the field is soccer. Within the local reality, yes. But what of the wider reality that may exist, the possibility of which exists? And if you limit yourself to what you perceive, and do not consider what you might not know, then you are not engaging with the thought experiment. Your choice, really. But how do you know that it is knowledge, rather than just your belief based on your perception within the local reality? How do you know it corresponds to the actuality of the wider reality? Answer: you can't. Yet despite your assertions, you don't know that in the context of the wider reality. What you are considering to be knowledge can only be considered as such within the context of the local, unless you are able to show how it also corresponds to th pe wider reality. Your mere assertion and claim of knowledge is insufficient. You seem never to declare anything, Jan, and leave it to us to divine the implications from what you do say (implications that you then deny when they go against what you intended). That said, what presuppositions do you think I have come into this experiment with? The experiment is quite clear. And from that, the only thing that can be known by someone within the local reality about what is in any possible wider reality is that, if there is a wider reality, they are part of it. At least the "I" is. Whether that "I" is human, a BiaV, a sentient mechanical machine... this can't be known.
We don't lead our lives as though we're not human? I am a part reality, be it local, or wide (whatever those terms mean), and as such I perceive it from that pov. The terms ''local reality'' and ''wider reality'', are either constructs from the mind that could be a BIV, or ''ultimate reality''. Either way they are as much a perception as, perceiving one to be a human being, and not a brain in a vat, or being a brain in a vat. The transcending reality is, we are conscious. You keep trying to hold me to your standard of rules, while asking me to show how I know I'm not a brain in a vat. That is dishonest. If you can contemplate something that maintains your notion that know of being a BIV is impossible, I can contemplate something that maintains my notions. What do you regard as a ''wider reality''? Are you saying that the dream represents the wider reality, and the dreamer is represents the local reality? What I ''might not know'' is due to my perception, not to what you may call reality. I have to know something in order to contemplate things I ''might not know''. You wouldn't be engaging in the experiment if you forced me to only accept your pressuppositions. We have innate knowledge, that is true regardless of whether we think they are. For examples the laws of logic are true. So we can know what is true, and from that recognise what is true or false. I don't accept that there is a ''wide or local'' reality, that is your presupossition. Above. How do you know that? What method of justification did you use to know that? It's quite amusing how you know that, especially the limitation you assert as if it is true. How do you know that Baldeee? jan.
Apologies, was typing too fast for the iPad to keep up. I meant to type: "it is indeed the reality by which we lead our lives." You perceive your self-awareness, your "I" irrespective of context, but everything else is limited to the local reality. The terms were explained previously in the thread, Jan. Local reality is the one we think we are perceiving. The wider reality might be that we are just a brain in a vat, with the local reality being fed to us from a computer. Yes, and as such perception of being a human being in the local reality is not the arbiter of actually being one in the wider reality. Not disputed. Apologies, should I not hold you to being able to think logically? Is that dishonest of me to do so? So what is it you are contemplating to maintain your notion that, even in any wider reality, you are not a brain in a vat? It is accepted that in the local reality you perceive yourself as a human being, and likely everyone who meets you will do similarly. But the question is how you can know about the wider reality, what is it that enables you to know that you are not a BiaV, as you claim? No, in that analogy the dream would be the local and the dreamer represents the wider reality. Unless one manages lucid dreaming, the dream state is oblivious to their being a wider reality. In general terms the wider reality is whatever is giving rise to the local reality. In the context of the BiaV, the local reality is whatever the brain is experiencing while the wider reality would be that they are a BiaV with their experiences being fed to them by a computer rather than then being an actual human being. Only the wider reality can be known for sure. The local reality can be faked (as per the brain's experiences while in the vat). The wider reality is that which can not be faked. But your perception is limited to the local reality, and thus might be faked. With the acknowledged exception of your own consciousness. Everything else you perceive of the local reality could be faked, and thus can not be known. No, but having different presuppositions is different from playing by different rules. One team in a soccer match may play defensively, the other offensively, but they both know the rules of the game. Logic merely shows us what is consistent or not. All ducks are green, Pete is a duck, therefore Pete is green. This is logically valid. Objective truth must not only be consistent but must actually conform to the objective reality. Applying logic only to what you can perceive within a local reality will only tell you about the consistency within the local reality. It tells you nothing about any wider reality, should one exist. Unfortunately that is the rule of the game, Jan. The scenario is that there IS a wider reality. So really you're just admitting that you're not playing the game, you're not partaking of the thought experiment, and you presumably never were. I suggest you put the football down and go join a rugby match if that is the game you want to play, rather than disrupt those wishing to engage in this one. "Know" as it pertains to the local reality. And it is based on logic, about this local reality, once we realise that it is closed, and operates according to various laws, as science suggests to us that it is and does. This means that the only time we can know anything about any wider reality is when there is an interruption to this local reality from outside, where the wider reality enters our local reality and effectively becomes part of the local. Or until such time as the local reality ceases and there is only the wider. But I did also previously explain how we rarely ever consider the possibility of any wider reality, and thus lapses in meaning of words that might apply differently to the local and wider realities - especially the context to which we are applying our use of the word "know" - might occur. This would be one such occasion. "Know" only within the context of the local reality. To avoid further confusion it should be established that any knowledge I might claim is only to be extended to the local reality, unless specifically stated otherwise.
Ehm... I didn't send you any links. At all. I quoted the Wikipedia link that DaveC posted I will presume you are referring to that... and as such can only conclude that you utterly failed to divine the meaning of the experiment. Prove to me that you are, in fact, a human being, and not a brain simply being fed input signals that simulate you being a human being. It should be simple, based on what you are saying. Or, those dreams are being "fed" to you, being that you are nothing more than a brain with electrodes attached, and are a result of the computer simulation that you are living within. It's okay Jan... it is a terrifying prospect; the thought that everything you "know" is, potentially, a fake - a mere simulation for someone else's purpose. A similar concept to The Matrix, if one wants to make the comparison. How do you prove you are in or out, if you don't know the Matrix itself exists?
I don't perceive my self-awareness, or my ''I''. Those are fixed regardless of my condition. So my perception of being a human being is in the ''local reality'', and ''I'', my conscious awareness, is in the wider reality. Okay. But the ability to ''perceive'' is? Good. Dividing ''reality'' is not logical thinking, it is a stipulation. But worry not, we have already bridged the gap between so called and wider reality. ''I am'' conscious, that is the truth. ''I'' cannot be affected by the restraints of divided realities. ''I'' am ''I'', whether I am in a human vehicle, or hooked up to a continue. I assume we agree on this. We've agreed that I am conscious, and that consciousness is the transcending reality, so ''I'' am not a brain in a vat if I am conscious, unless consciousnesss is not the transcending reality. Are we still agreed that consciousness is the transcending reality? Because ''I'' am conscious. From here on in, the discussion is going to be about fundamental principles, what we bring to the table. A brain is a material object, it is not conscious. There is no ''I'' with regard the brain. We take your brain out of you head, is simply a blob of meat. What do you think you mean when you say ''my brain''? The analogy was mine, and in that analogy the dream was the wider reality, and my human vehicle was the local one. Get your own analogy. To me the local reality is what ''I'' accept as objective reality, and ''I'' would be the wider reality. Okay. We understand that consciousness is transcendental to any physical restraints, I am conscious, I know that. Yet the BIV is feeding me information. Now while it can trick me into thinking I am human, it cannot trick me into thinking that I am not conscious. Are we agreed? The laws of logic are true. Do we agree on this? Can this not be logically valid? Logic is not restricted to the 'local reality', it is also the same in the wider reality. Right? So it tells me something about reality. In fact I don't need to divide reality, as we begin to realise that what we perceived to be 'local and wider' realities are simply reality, because there are phenomena that are not only inherent in reality, but within our consciousness. Do you agree thus far? It assumes that there are different realities, meaning you have to traverse each reality, as if you're going on a long hike. It actually serves no purpose other than to allow you to think there are disctances in getting to know, rather than just instantly knowing something. Just because I don't think like you or James doesn't mean I'm not playing the game. Unfortunately, you so much believe that you can't know anything to be true, you now accept it as truth and defend it religiously, which is why you make rules up. Look again at any good definition of the BIV experiment (including the link by Kittarmaru), and tell me where it specifies 'local and wider' realities. So logic can be different in the ''wider reality''? jan.
If I were to say to you 'prove to me you are in fact a brain in a vat, and not a brain simply being fed input signals that simulate you being a brain in a vat'. How would you respond? You seem to delight in the idea that you think I'm like you, a person who can't know anything for sure. Please try and remember, this is only a mind experiment. Did you notice in the Matrix, conditioned Neo was aware that the reality he was experiencing was somehow not correct. At that time the people who knew what Neo had felt, felt it was time to give him the knowledge. My point is, there is always someone who knows better, and will help you if and when you seek their help. This goes all the way up to the Greatest Person. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
That I could not adequately do so - from my perspective, I am "real" and have a body, et al - I do not have access to any "extra sensory" input outside of what my brain is able to comprehend. Thus, I cannot, beyond a reasonable doubt, prove I am not a brain being "fed" input to convince me that I am actually real. Which is rather the whole point of the thought experiment. I do not believe you to be anything like me... Neo was vaguely aware that something was off only because others, who had already escaped, were leaving breadcrumbs. He would not have been aware of it otherwise, beyond a vague sense of wrongness, easily attributable to depression, dissatisfaction with his life, et al. Ah, and here we arrive at the apparent crux of the issue - faith. You do not know there is a "greatest person", or even anyone at all to help you should you seek it. You believe it to be true. Note - I'm not saying you are wrong (that would be quite hypocritical of me, given I am a believer myself). My point, though, is that it cannot be proven. In fact, there are stories to show that steps were actively taken to PREVENT it being proven (Tower of Babel comes to mind).[/QUOTE]
You don't perceive that you are self-aware? Perhaps you are not, then. ??? The very definition of being self-aware is that one can perceive that they are self-aware, that they are aware of / can perceive themselves. Not quite: your perception of being a human is in the "local reality" but your "I" would transcend both, if you exist as a self-aware conscious individual in the "wider reality". If you don't exist in any wider reality (or if there is no wider reality) then obviously your "I" wouldn't. No, your ability to perceive is not the arbiter of determining what you are, unless you can show that what you perceive matches objective reality, if such exists. I didn't say it was: the logical thinking comes after you define the premises. I presume you meant "computer" rather than "continue"? Define "I" other than being the self-referential routine within the processing unit you call a brain? I think you are assuming something about the "I" that I have not, so please define it? The "I", as far as I am referring, is simply your sense of "I", not some entity (material or otherwise) that exists outside the interconnectedness of the processing unit. It is the processing unit. So you can be a brain in a vat if you are conscious. You will retain a sense of "I", but that "I" will be associated with, and thus efffectively is, the brain in the vat. This, as previously stated, is insufficient to identify that you are not a BiaV. Your perception, even that you are conscious, is limited to this local reality. It is quite possible that consciousnesses exist in the local reality that do not exist in any wider reality... e.g. you have the wider reality of being a BiaV, but within the local reality that the brain perceives there is a consciousness, an AI if you will, that has no corresponding consciousness within the wider reality. Thus being conscious is not the arbiter. So you believe. The processing unit that, when operating (i.e. blood flow, neurons firing, chemicals in balance etc), is conscious. Then it is not an analogy that seems to match what I am referring to. You can take what I offered by way of trying to make it match, but if you continue to use it I think you will only confuse yourself, or wander further from what is being discussed. Not quite in line with the rules of the game: while the local reality is indeed what the "I" accepts as reality (through what it perceives), the wider reality is merely that reality which gives rise to the perceptions... e.g. the BiaV wired up to a computer. This wider reality might even not be the widest reality. We do not know that. That is your assertion. Science very much asserts that it is limited to the processing that goes on within the brain and/or biological construct (for those creatures with a dispersed processor). No, the BiaV is you, just not the you that you are aware of. The sense of consciousness may link the two, but nothing else might - your personality, your memories etc, all could be different. Surely one can not think and be non-conscious. But you could be made unconscious, although the BiaV would also need be unconscious - lest there is a disparity between that sense within the local and wider realities. This makes no symantic sense. Truth lies in the correct application of logic. The laws of logic themselves are not "true" - they simply are what they are. Not within our local reality. I have no idea what logic applies to the wider reality. It might be possible to model a different logic within a simulation than that which governs the reality the computer exists in. I don't know. I don't know. No. No, it serves to show that there are limitations to what can actually be known. And other than "I am", I am not aware of anything that can be known when in the context of a possible wider reality. Of course we can "know" things when that knowledge is restricted to the local reality. Yet there you are, picking up the soccer ball and trying to play rugby. To quote from Kit's post: "According to such stories, the computer would then be simulating reality (including appropriate responses to the brain's own output) and the "disembodied" brain would continue to have perfectly normal conscious experiences, such as those of a person with an embodied brain, without these being related to objects or events in the real world." The local reality is merely a term to refer to the simulated reality. The wider reality is a term to refer to the real world. Care to play the game yet? I don't know.
I read something along these lines recently although I can't remember where and I seem to recall it was related to some sort of research. Probably why I did not take it in or remember where I read it was because I thought it was nonsence... Maybe Jan read the same article and knows where we can find it. When I read Jan's post re this I thought it could be bait and when the bait was taken we would be refferred to the article that I think I read. Alex
I have conscious knowledge that I am self aware. "I", being the "self" have knowledge, and it starts with self awareness. Here's a quote from wiki... Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.[1] It is not to be confused with consciousness in the sense of qualia. While consciousness is a term given to being aware of one's environment and body and lifestyle, self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness. By thinking one can perceive themselves shows you don't really know what you're talking about. That's what I said. Lol! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now we're back to your nonsense. Your 'ability' comes from self awareness, and ''Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.'' The self/ego. Erm it is the self, what we have knowledge of when we are self aware. Maybe you haven't got to that stage yet, so I sympathise. There would be no need of this discussion if that wasn't the case. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Keep up Baldeee! It depends on whether or not you are self aware. If, like you, you accept that you could be a brain in a vat, then you lack self awareness. But luckily I can set you on the right path if you take that bucket of sand from around your neck. The one your head's constantly buried in. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Complete nonsense. Look and learn from that quote on Self Awareness. Only if I choose it to be. You're a good example of someone who chooses it to be. Is this yet another silly rule? We agree that consciousness IS transcendental to what you term the local and wider reality. We agree that I am conscious. If I become self aware, my knowledge can also know of the transcendental plane, as ''I'' am also conscious. Failure to do that will make me like you, unawares, and therefore a slave to the vat controller. I know, because I am self aware, and I know I am consciousness. Your problem is, you don't know, and you're trying to keep me in the same state of ignorance you currently enjoy. Whatever floats your boat. Do you know what is being discussed, outside of reading the instructions? I ask because for the most part you're talking nonsense. Or is it that you are out of your depth? No. The ''I'' is the self/ego. It is the ''I'' that becomes self aware (for those that do). Self awareness (as stated above) is knowledge of the self, which is separate from the environment, and from other individuals (the vat controller who has you enslaved in a vat). Now, are you saying that ''self awarness'' does not exist? Yes the BIV could be me, like it is you, if ''I'' accept it. Once ''I'' don't accept it, ''I'' begin the road to ''self awareness', or as I like to call it, 'self realization'. Once on that road, ''I'' can know what ''I am'' in ''reality''. Memories and personality, aren't the ''I''. The ''I'' remains, even if you are dreaming, or you are unconscious. That's what you need to understand to get yourself out this phantasmagoria. Now you're just flapping. Stay on track. So you're saying the laws of logic are not true, they just are what they are? Sigh! So the laws of logic are absolute. Is that a fair description? So the laws of logic aren't absolute, or as you put ''just are what they are''? It is possible that they can change according to perception, time, place, and circumstance? So it may be possible that the law of non contradiction, be illogical? Fantastic response Baldeee. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Tell me something. If you are limited in what you know, is it possible that you may not be aware of others who may not be as serverely limited as you? But yet you talk so much nonsense, acting like you know. Like you know anything. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I won the game some time ago. I think the vat controller made you blink, and you missed it. jan.
Yet you don't perceive it? No, it starts with being conscious. Yet the last line of your quote: "... self-awareness is the recognition of that awareness". That sounds very much like perceiving oneself to me. You know... being aware of the self. No, you didn't. You said: "So my perception of being a human being is in the ''local reality'', and ''I'', my conscious awareness, is in the wider reality." I.e. perception of being a human being is in the local (not in the wider), and your "I" is in the wider (i.e. not the local). Spot the difference. Just let me know which parts you're not able to follow or grasp. Recognising yourself as separate from the environment is not the same as recognising who you are, or what other properties you may have. Define "self / ego", please - in terms of what is, not what it does. You can say that the "I" is the "self" or as "ego" all you want, but unless you define them in temrs of what they actually are rather than just use alternate labels, this discussion isn't going to get anywhere. So you agree that you can be a brain in a vat even though you are conscious? Yet previously you stated: "We've agreed that I am conscious, and that consciousness is the transcending reality, so ''I'' am not a brain in a vat if I am conscious," Yet again you continue with your inconsistency. It remains frustrating. Not at all. I am aware I am distinct from the environment - but in the context of a possible wider reality, I acknowledge that I can not know the ultimate reality of what I am - whether that be a BiaV, an artificial intelligence, or whether it is indeed as I perceive in this local reality. You can't set someone on any path when they are already at the destination and you yourself are blindly groping for nothing but points. And how does that quote rebut anything I have said?? And thus you show you don't understand the thought experiment. Unless you can show that you actually do, given the effort put in to explaining it to you, then of what point is this discussion? No, it's the logic of this local reality, by which you are bound while within this reality. Consciousness is the only thing that, if there is a wider reality, you can know about yourself in the wider reality. Everything else - no, you can not know. It is up for grabs. You can only be aware of your self within this local reality. You have yet to show otherwise. Ah, so you're simply arguing out of fear. I get it. I know I am conscious, and I am self aware. And I also understand the thought experiment, Jan. I am trying to help you out of your state of ignorance with regard it. Until you show that you understand the experiment, you are simply going round in circles fuelled, it seems, by ignorance and fear, and undoubtedly not a small amount of pride. That you think it nonsense simply adds weight to the fact that you don't understand the thought experiment. No, I'm saying that you are not self-aware within the wider reality, only the local reality. The local reality is the only reality you are aware of. Oh, wow, do you not understand the experiment at all. Despite everything that has been explained to you. Your "I" can only know what "I am" in the context of the local reality. That is the experiment, Jan. You can talk all you want of not accepting the experiment, but that just shows you're here not to play the game but to disrupt it. If you can't follow, just say. In the same way that mathematical functions are not an equation: they need to be applied to something, and the outcome is either true or not dependent upon whether it complies with those functions. I think they are unwavering within our local reality.I do not know if they are the same within any wider reality, should one exist. Sorry, what else were you expecting? You asked if we agree so far with what you said, and my answer is no. If you want the long version: "no, we don't agree". You talk about "what we perceived of the local and wider reality" - yet this just shows you don't understand the experiment at all, because per the experiment we can not know anything about the wider reality. So no, I don't agree with what you said. There are people who know more about this local reality than I, of course. People will always know more than others about things. But is it possible that they can know anything more about any wider reality, should there be one? No. I know nothing, they know nothing. I can know nothing, they can know nothing. We all know the same about it. Ah, you have nothing left to offer other than trite efforts at insult? You may have won the game you're playing in your own mind, Jan, but you really haven't grasped the rules of this one. In fact you have, as is your want, more or less stopped everyone else playing it. Ah, well.
It looks to me that in the last string of posts, Jan thinks he has hit on a get-out clause that saves his argument. But that comes at the expense of changing what he has been arguing up to this point. Up to this point, Jan's position has been "I know that I am not a brain in a vat because I'm a human being". That is, Jan has been claiming to know that he is a flesh-and-blood creature with localised consciousness. This argument fails because all of the brain's sensory inputs are electrical impulses, that could, in principle, be "faked" in such a way that the sense impressions the brain receives come not from any flesh-and-blood body but from a sufficiently-advanced computer. At some point, Jan started to argue religiously, that the "real" Jan is not Jan's brain, but is instead a disembodied soul that somehow interfaces with his human brain, which in turn interfaces with his body. Then, according to Jan, the disembodied soul can somehow magically know that it is interfacing, via the brain, with a real human body, as opposed to a simulation. Just how it can know that remains unspecified, and so this argument ultimately fails too. Now Jan wants us to believe that the above isn't what he has been arguing at all. Instead, he claims that he has been saying all along that he knows he is not a brain in a vat because he knows that "I, Jan" is nothing but a disembodied soul. If this is true, it follows from this that "I, Jan" is not a brain in a vat. But it also follows that "I, Jan" is not a flesh-and-blood human being, and recall that he started by being quite insistent that this was, indeed, what he was. To summarise where we're at now, as I understand it. Jan's current claim is that he is neither a brain in a vat nor a flesh-and-blood human being with a brain. Instead, Jan claims that he ("I, Jan") is only a disembodied soul. In disowning "his" human body and "his" brain, he also thinks he can avoid the uncomfortable conclusion that his brain may be in a vat. Or else he implicitly admits that his brain could be in a vat, but asserts that his brain is not "him". So, let's clear up this point at least: Jan, please tell us whether you now believe it is possible that your human brain could be in a vat, as described in the original thought experiment. To be clear, I want to know whether you accept that it is possible for your brain to be in a vat, with all its sense perceptions fed by a computer, instead of its being in a flesh-and-blood human body. Note that this question is independent of whether the "you" that you call "I, Jan" is in a vat. We can get to that issue after you clarify your current position. Note also that I have deliberately not addressed your claim that you ("I, Jan") know that you're ("I, Jan") not a brain in a vat here. I want to make sure we're all on the same page about what, exactly, is the point of contention, first.
Apologies if this has already been covered. TL;DR BIV has a problem dealing with the causal connection of reference. Even assuming we are brains in vats, the things of our simulation must have some causal connection to the things they reference. Otherwise the statement "we are brains in vats" cannot be true, because it does not actually reference brains and vats. So even if we are BIV, there must be an external world where brains, vats, and other things referenced in our simulation actually exist. Or at the very best, the statement "we are brains in vats" is ambiguous. So there is an argument to made that, if we are brains in vats (and can express that true proposition), our perceptions do reference real things, albeit simulated. And since we find such complex consistency in the physics, etc. of our simulated references, what are the odds of the real things either being inconsistent or differently consistent? Especially assuming our world to be wholly natural and coincidental in its origin and existence, personally, I would have to postulate a god-like entity to create such a differently consistent simulation. So my conclusion is that either we are not brains in vats or that even being brains in vats allows us sufficient information about reality...or there is a legitimate god-like entity.
I don't think it has. I'm not sure that there is a must, merely a maybe. Afterall, is it not possible for us to create computer games of things that don't exist? Ogres, supermen, dragons etc. Do these things actually exist? Assuming you agree that they don't, then what if the BiaV's only experience is of those things: to the BiaV the only reality of which he is aware is one that therefore might contain things that don't actually exist in his real reality (where he is a BiaV). I don't think so. It is merely meant to represent one possible scenario where we can have no knowledge of anything other than the "reality" we are being fed, for example. I think this has been touched on before - but only in that I'm not sure it's possible to create a different set of rules (read Laws of physics, logic etc) and remain coherent. As such, while I'm not sure it can be proven, I would think it reasonable to assume that if there is what is being referred to as a "wider reality" (i.e. where the brain is in a vat as opposed to the "local reality" that is being experienced by the brain) then it would adhere to the same logic etc. But whether that necessarily means that all things are consistent... I don't know. Why god-like? Is that not merely saying: "I don't know how it could be done... therefore God did it". If by "god-like" (and perhaps the lower-case "g" was deliberate on your part?) then you are simply defining god-like as being able to come up with a set of laws / conditions that allow for a viable and coherent simulation. Is this "god-like" or merely a powerful enough computer? And my conclusion is that I don't agree, as per the above. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I am more of the opinion that we can not know, and therefore any assertion would be unwarranted. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The entire argument hinges on the bolded text above. You're acknowledging that BiaV can exist, just the it's unlikely that its simulated reality would be consistent. Well, our world has quite a number of inconsistencies. (eg. incompatibility of GR v. QM) And remember, the entire point of BiaV is that it cannot predict or "know" what is outside its simulation. Your argument does not change that.
Talking about ''consciousness'' and ''self-awareness'' is ''religious''? It is little wonder you fail to grasp what is being said. My position starts with ''I am not my body'', but a spirit-soul with a body, and the symptom of the soul is consciousness. Not that I switched. Your position starts with you are your body, or brain, which is why it is such a conundrum for you. There's nothing 'magical' about consciousness. It is why the body is alive, or the brain. I am consciousness, and as such I can know that I am in the body of a human being, and not a brain in vat. There is no local or wider consciousness, that's just made up stipulations to try and counter problems that occur. The scientist or evil demon who imprisons you, is also conscious, non different to yourself. He can only imprison you by fooling you into thinking you are what he wants you to be. I have a flesh and blood human body, but I can know that because ''I'' am consciously aware that ''I'' have a body, ''I'' only inhabit this body.That is my starting point. I don't know whether it's possible. Do you think it is? Hang on I'll just go and write it down in my diary... ...got it! jan.
