Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sy Borg]

Brains in vats is purely a thought experiment to make a point and is clearly an absurd notion that would not be possible in this reality.

OK, please quantify this absurdity. In what way is it absurd? What evidence do you have of this absurdity? How is it not "possible in this reality" when there is no difference to "this reality"? What do you know, that philosophers throughout history have failed to realise?

In case you haven't noticed - and clearly you have not - brains are not magic objects that appear in isolation. They are evolved processors of sensory input for most animals.

Brains in a vat only appear to be theoretically possible because consciousness is not understood. If it was understood at all, then humans would have a solid plan for creating consciousness, and they most likely would see the utter absurdity of taking the brain in a vat thought experiment seriously.

[Sy Borg]

We are also very, very obviously not brains in vats, just as very, very obviously, the biblical God does not exist.

I'm sorry you think that way. But my unicorn says you are wrong - so does the Chief Wizard of Arnor, and we all know that he is never wrong.

Why are we trying to 'dumb down' philosophy, to Make Philosophy Great Again?
Why are we shying away from apparent conclusions that we just don't like?
And why are we attacking these ideas using ridicule, and unjustified assertions, when serious and considered discussion seems to be the optimal tool?

Resorting to implied ad hom? Oh dear.

As I already said (but it appears not to have breached the zone between your ears), nothing would delight me more than the prospect of eternity in heaven, as opposed to simply going away. Then again, as a child, nothing would have pleased me more than Santa being real.

Alas, at some point we have to grow up and face the actual reality that we are tiny emanations of a star and a planet within a vast, uncaring cosmos. I think people he can see that I have no axe to grind, and there's no jaundice or agenda in my comments here, despite your attempt to paint me as a resentful anti-Christian.

No, I just think it's silly to literally believe what were probably metaphorical claims in religious texts. You'd do better looking or subtext in religious claims rather than treating them as literal claims. Religious texts only exist because humans have always tried to pass pass their knowledge (and influence) on to the next generations. The idea of them was to impart life lessons, and deities were a tool in that aim - imaginary watchdogs that kept people behaving lawfully.

[Pattern-chaser]

Brains in a vat only appear to be theoretically possible because consciousness is not understood. If it was understood at all, then humans would have a solid plan for creating consciousness, and they most likely would see the utter absurdity of taking the brain in a vat thought experiment seriously.

Yes, perhaps, and so, until our understanding somehow improves, the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment remains valid, on its own terms. Many such questions as these might be answerable, in theory, if we just knew more than we did. But we don't. Yet...?

Until then, I think it's premature to declare brains-in-vats to be absurd.

[Pattern-chaser]

...despite your attempt to paint me as a resentful anti-Christian.

No, I just think it's silly to literally believe what were probably metaphorical claims in religious texts.

I have made no such "attempt".

I, too, think it's silly to "literally believe" anything without good reason. That would be as unwise (and illogical/unreasonable) as literally rejecting that same 'anything' without good reason, wouldn't it?

[Belinda]

Brains in vats is purely a thought experiment to make a point and is clearly an absurd notion that would not be possible in this reality.

OK, please quantify this absurdity. In what way is it absurd? What evidence do you have of this absurdity? How is it not "possible in this reality" when there is no difference to "this reality"? What do you know, that philosophers throughout history have failed to realise?

In case you haven't noticed - and clearly you have not - brains are not magic objects that appear in isolation. They are evolved processors of sensory input for most animals.

Brains in a vat only appear to be theoretically possible because consciousness is not understood. If it was understood at all, then humans would have a solid plan for creating consciousness, and they most likely would see the utter absurdity of taking the brain in a vat thought experiment seriously.

I agree. Brains in vats are carbon- based computers.

[Samana Johann]

What makes yours believe that God "material-matter" exists? Good-ness?

[Pattern-chaser]

Brains in a vat only appear to be theoretically possible because consciousness is not understood. If it was understood at all, then humans would have a solid plan for creating consciousness, and they most likely would see the utter absurdity of taking the brain in a vat thought experiment seriously.

Yes, perhaps, and so, until our understanding somehow improves, the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment remains valid, on its own terms. Many such questions as these might be answerable, in theory, if we just knew more than we did. But we don't. Yet...?

Until then, I think it's premature to declare brains-in-vats to be absurd.

I think we're both missing the point here. The BIV thought experiment simply illustrates that there are many possible explanations for why reality appears to us as it does. And all of those explanations are *indistinguishable* to us humans. It is impossible for us to tell which explanation is the 'true' one, and that is the point of BIV.

[Sy Borg]

Brains in a vat only appear to be theoretically possible because consciousness is not understood. If it was understood at all, then humans would have a solid plan for creating consciousness, and they most likely would see the utter absurdity of taking the brain in a vat thought experiment seriously.

Yes, perhaps, and so, until our understanding somehow improves, the brain-in-a-vat thought experiment remains valid, on its own terms. Many such questions as these might be answerable, in theory, if we just knew more than we did. But we don't. Yet...?

Until then, I think it's premature to declare brains-in-vats to be absurd.

I think we're both missing the point here. The BIV thought experiment simply illustrates that there are many possible explanations for why reality appears to us as it does. And all of those explanations are *indistinguishable* to us humans. It is impossible for us to tell which explanation is the 'true' one, and that is the point of BIV.

That's what I was saying. It's just a thought experiment to prove a point. No sensible person would believe that a brain in a vat exists, other than the vat that is our body system (as per Belinda's post).

While I am all for open-mindedness, there must be limits of we are lost in chaos. If we are to use our minds to bring order to an inherently deeply chaotic existence, then we cannot accept rigorously-achieved findings, then we end up with Moon landing conspiracies, the flat Earth and Young Earth Creationism. That danger is that science is now being corrupted by corporations, hence you'll have situations like KFC being sponsor of the heart Foundation or the CSIRO's jaundiced nuclear power report based on dodgy examples, giving the false impression nuclear is not a viable energy source. Or we could speak of the relationship between doctors and Big Phrama. Or we can cast our minds back to when smoking a leaded petrol were found to be dangerous, and the companies paid scientists to claim that cig smoking and leaded petrol were safe. The list goes on.

This is huge to me. You may relate - one thing that helps to ground me with my AS is having a reliable basic model of reality via science. My rock is eroding. So now that science cannot be entirely trusted, one must use one's commonsense and logic. Otherwise, with science becoming more unreliable, religions will fill the trust void.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think we're both missing the point here. The BIV thought experiment simply illustrates that there are many possible explanations for why reality appears to us as it does. And all of those explanations are *indistinguishable* to us humans. It is impossible for us to tell which explanation is the 'true' one, and that is the point of BIV.

That's what I was saying. It's just a thought experiment to prove a point. No sensible person would believe that a brain in a vat exists, other than the vat that is our body system (as per Belinda's post).

Aren't you saying that you have recognised the lesson, but not learned (from) it? A brain-in-a-vat isn't possible with *our* present-day technology, but we can see clearly how such a thing *could* be done, and that we, even in the real world, are not that far away from being able to achieve it? In other words, it (or something like it) could be done.

The issue applies just as much to solipsism, or to being programmed elements in a gigantic computer 'game', subject to the whims of a Cartesian demon, or any of the many (infinite?) possibilities. The lesson, I think, is that what seems 'obvious' isn't actually as 'obvious' as we think it is, or should be. There are other possibilities than that the literal sensory impressions we have are true, accurate, and what they seem to be? Seeming is not necessarily actuality; I think that is the lesson, the message?

While I am all for open-mindedness, there must be limits of we are lost in chaos

[...]

This is huge to me. You may relate - one thing that helps to ground me with my AS is having a reliable basic model of reality via science. My rock is eroding. So now that science cannot be entirely trusted, one must use one's commonsense and logic. Otherwise, with science becoming more unreliable, religions will fill the trust void.

It seems there is another lesson here too: the issues we are discussing are outside the scope of science. From our perspective — i.e. our literal point of view, the position or 'location' from which we make our observations — these are issues that are not capable of resolution. Just as Gödel (and others) point out that many things cannot be fully (logically and reasonably) consistent and complete, this is just another such observation, yes?

This is not the downfall of science. Your "rock" is quite safe, I think? It's just that there are some things that we don't, and can't, know. Is that so desperately dreadful? After all, it's always been the case, whether or not we knew it...? Oh, and I think science remains as trustworthy as it has always been. Such matters as these do not undermine science in any way. At worst, they only remind us that science (and analytic philosophy, and all that stuff) has its limits. It can't address *every* problem. Didn't we realise that already? I think we did.

[Ezeakor Oliver]

Well. At some point in life, I doubted my religion. I wished to find out but couldn't. Well, now that I've grown up, I believe I understand a lot of things about God, but maybe I feel a lot of people of same religion don't quite understand their God. Just another perspective.

[Sy Borg]

I think we're both missing the point here. The BIV thought experiment simply illustrates that there are many possible explanations for why reality appears to us as it does. And all of those explanations are *indistinguishable* to us humans. It is impossible for us to tell which explanation is the 'true' one, and that is the point of BIV.

That's what I was saying. It's just a thought experiment to prove a point. No sensible person would believe that a brain in a vat exists, other than the vat that is our body system (as per Belinda's post).

🤔 Aren't you saying that you have recognised the lesson, but not learned (from) it? 🤔

No, I am saying that a lesson is there to be learned by those who don't take it literally - as you clearly have erroneously done and are now trying to dig yourself out of your self-inflicted hole.

Do you still think that leprechauns might be real?

While I am all for open-mindedness, there must be limits of we are lost in chaos

[...]

This is huge to me. You may relate - one thing that helps to ground me with my AS is having a reliable basic model of reality via science. My rock is eroding. So now that science cannot be entirely trusted, one must use one's commonsense and logic. Otherwise, with science becoming more unreliable, religions will fill the trust void.

It seems there is another lesson here too: the issues we are discussing are outside the scope of science. From our perspective — i.e. our literal point of view, the position or 'location' from which we make our observations — these are issues that are not capable of resolution. Just as Gödel (and others) point out that many things cannot be fully (logically and reasonably) consistent and complete, this is just another such observation, yes?

This is not the downfall of science. Your "rock" is quite safe, I think? It's just that there are some things that we don't, and can't, know. Is that so desperately dreadful? After all, it's always been the case, whether or not we knew it...? Oh, and I think science remains as trustworthy as it has always been. Such matters as these do not undermine science in any way. At worst, they only remind us that science (and analytic philosophy, and all that stuff) has its limits. It can't address *every* problem. Didn't we realise that already? I think we did.

Yes, my rock was never reliable, but it's now more corrupt. I'm not at all judgemental about science's failures. No, it's science's successes that bother me, like sponsorships and politically-conditional grants.

I have no problem with now knowing everything. Aside from the pointlessness of doing this in a pluralist society, its not possible. If you have been paying attention at all, you will notice that I am practical. Why would I embrace any idealistic position when I consider ideology to be the refuge of the incurious?

But that's not the point. What gets me is that someone imagines a fantasy - like a humanoid deity who is larger than the universe (and is most concerned about homosexuality in Homo sapiens). According to your post-modern approach, we cannot simply dismiss the fantasy as being such off-hand. Yet God is no more likely or credible than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which of course was the point.

Still, the potential God/deity that exists in your brain structure, inherited from thousands of generations of supernatural believers is real. It can be accessed. I've done it. Millions have. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural, just understand that the capacity is there.

Ironic that theistic materialism - the demand that God be material, as if subjective reality is not enough - separates theists from their greatest desires and needs.

[Lagayascienza]

[The]God/deity that exists in your brain structure, inherited from thousands of generations of supernatural believers is real. It can be accessed. I've done it. Millions have. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural, just understand that the capacity is there.

That is the only idea of god that makes any sense to me. If people could be content with that reality instead of killing each other over crazy fundamentalist notions of a humanoid deity, a cosmic sky-daddy, who is other than us and who exists objectively in some heaven, and who hands down rules about food and sex, etc., then the world would be a better place. We are the source of god and morality. How could it be otherwise?

[Belinda]

[The]God/deity that exists in your brain structure, inherited from thousands of generations of supernatural believers is real. It can be accessed. I've done it. Millions have. You don't need to believe in anything supernatural, just understand that the capacity is there.

That is the only idea of god that makes any sense to me. If people could be content with that reality instead of killing each other over crazy fundamentalist notions of a humanoid deity, a cosmic sky-daddy, who is other than us and who exists objectively in some heaven, and who hands down rules about food and sex, etc., then the world would be a better place. We are the source of god and morality. How could it be otherwise?

Whether or not the god is envisaged as an old man or whatever is neither here nor there.What matters is firstly, whether or not the God is tribal or universal and secondly , whether or not the god intervenes in the natural course of events.

[Pattern-chaser]

The BIV thought experiment simply illustrates that there are many possible explanations for why reality appears to us as it does. And all of those explanations are *indistinguishable* to us humans. It is impossible for us to tell which explanation is the 'true' one, and that is the point of BIV.

That's what I was saying. It's just a thought experiment to prove a point. No sensible person would believe that a brain in a vat exists, other than the vat that is our body system (as per Belinda's post).

Aren't you saying that you have recognised the lesson, but not learned (from) it?

No, I am saying that a lesson is there to be learned by those who don't take it literally - as you clearly have erroneously done and are now trying to dig yourself out of your self-inflicted hole.

I see no (significant) metaphor in this discussion, only philosophy. It's offered at face value, to be taken "literally", yes, more or less. As you are well aware, but pretend that you are not, BIV, or programmed video game characters, or solipsism, are *possible*. No-one claims they are *actual* — the whole point of my position is that we don't and can't know these things, so to assert the actuality of any of them is (in simple terms) going way beyond available evidence (none)!

Do you still think that leprechauns might be real?

Can you demonstrate the non-existence of leprechauns? I can't...

What gets me is that someone imagines a fantasy - like a humanoid deity who is larger than the universe (and is most concerned about homosexuality in Homo sapiens). According to your post-modern approach, we cannot simply dismiss the fantasy as being such off-hand.

If you wish to dismiss something you *believe* to be a "fantasy", surely you should be able to demonstrate that it is fantasy, and that it is not actual? Can you do that?

[Pattern-chaser]

What matters is firstly, whether or not the God is tribal or universal and secondly , whether or not the god intervenes in the natural course of events.

Are you saying that these things "make you believe that the God of your religion exists"?