It only seems to question whether we can trust our senses in a material world of brains in vats. The thought experiment still implies that brains requires sensory input from outside of itself. The brain in a vat needs to receive input through its sensory interfaces and would still be connect to the outside world in some way. — Harry Hindu
I don't believe that our senses lie. They provide information about the world and it is our interpretation of what the senses are telling us that is either accurate or not. — Harry Hindu
If we were brains in vats, what would be the purpose of us experiencing illusions, hallucinations or dreams? What would be the purpose of the experiment, or the reason why our brain is in a vat? Who put the brain in a vat - some entities that do see the world as it is? How would they know that they are not brains in vats? In the same way the "this is a simulation" thought experiment creates an infinite regress of how the simulators don't know they are in a simulation, etc., how do the mad scientists that put our brains in vats know that they are not themselves brains in vats? Why would the mad scientists allow us to even conceive that we might be brains in vats if the point was to fool us? — Harry Hindu
So I don't see how the thought experiment is useful. It seems simpler to just say that we interpret our sensory input incorrectly when we make knee-jerk assumptions about what it is we are experiencing, but when we use both observation and reason over time (scientific method) we are able to get at the world with more accuracy. — Harry Hindu
True. But Descartes's Evil Demon does not require an external material world.The thought experiment still implies that brains requires sensory input from outside of itself. The brain in a vat needs to receive input through its sensory interfaces and would still be connect to the outside world in some way. — Harry Hindu
Descartes's Evil Demon does not require an external material world. — Art48
Then the very foundation of science is called into question as science relies on observations. Science has pulled the rug out from under itself and doesn't have any ground to stand on.I think it's obvious from what science has revealed, that our senses grossly mislead us concerning the nature of reality. I wouldn't say that senses lie though. — Metaphysician Undercover
This was my point. The brain in a vat thought experiment is nonsensical because it leads to an infinite regress.I don't see that this sort of questioning is at all useful. It's like asking if God created the world, who created God. How is this type of question useful? Unless we identify and understand God, we have no way of knowing what created God. Likewise, until we locate the "mad scientists", and interrogate them, we have no way of knowing what their intentions were. So how can a question like this be useful? — Metaphysician Undercover
Again, all this does is turn the tables on your claims that brains are material objects when this is based on observations. It seems to me that the answers lie somewhere between extreme skepticism and extreme (naïve) realism, in that we can trust what our senses tell us given an accurate interpretation, which takes more than one observation and reason integrating these multiple observations into a consistent explanation.I think the thought experiment demonstrates that the scientific method may be incapable of giving us an accurate understanding. Since it can only validate through sense observation, it cannot validate any part of reality which is inherently unobservable. — Metaphysician Undercover
Then the very foundation of science is called into question as science relies on observations. Science has pulled the rug out from under itself and doesn't have any ground to stand on. — Harry Hindu
The fact is that science has not shown that our senses mislead us. It is our interpretations that mislead us. In providing a more accurate explanation of mirages and "bent" straws in a glass of water given the nature of light, we find that mirages and bent straws are exactly what we would expect to see. Our senses aren't lying. Light is bent when it travels through different mediums and is why we experience these things the way we do. It wasn't our senses that were lying, it was our interpretation of our experience without the understanding of how light behaves, and it is light we see, not "material" objects. — Harry Hindu
Is there any type of perception, either human or not (animals, mad scientists, advanced life forms that create simulations, etc.) that gets at the world directly? — Harry Hindu
It seems to me that the answers lie somewhere between extreme skepticism and extreme (naïve) realism, in that we can trust what our senses tell us given an accurate interpretation, which takes more than one observation and reason integrating these multiple observations into a consistent explanation. — Harry Hindu
I was responding to your contradictory claim, where you initially make a claim about what science has revealed as evidence for what you are saying:Yes, I think that is the endeavour of skepticism, to call into question the very foundation of science. And, the skeptic will reveal that science does pull the rug out from under itself. — Metaphysician Undercover
Well, if you want to get fussy, a brain itself is a material thing, so by that premise alone, it doesn't make sense to think of a brain in a nonmaterial world, whether or not it is in a vat. — Metaphysician Undercover
So, IS the brain itself a material thing, or is science that reveals the nature of material things misleading us?I think it's obvious from what science has revealed, that our senses grossly mislead us concerning the nature of reality. — Metaphysician Undercover
The distinction between lying and misleading does not take away from the main point I was making:As I said, our senses don't lie to us, they mislead us. Lying implies that it is done intentionally, the senses do not intentionally mislead us. It's simply the case that the sense organs are product of evolution, and so they are organized toward specific forms of utility. Human beings have now developed a mind which is inclined toward knowledge and truth, but the senses evolved before this inclination of human beings. So the utility of the senses is not knowledge and truth. That is why they mislead us. — Metaphysician Undercover
You get at the external world by inspecting yourself?Is there any type of perception, either human or not (animals, mad scientists, advanced life forms that create simulations, etc.) that gets at the world directly?
— Harry Hindu
I would say introspection does this. But it is not really a type of perception. — Metaphysician Undercover
I understand that many of us come to this forum to discuss philosophy to escape real life for a time, but in doing so we forget about all the trivial things we do throughout our lives that would easily contradict some of the assertions we make here on this forum. So think about all the trivial things that you do through your life that you have no issues with succeeding. You make it to work each day. You can pour a glass of water without spilling it. You are able to use you mobile phone and other complex technology without issues. You can read other people's words and get at their meaning and have a meaningful conversation. We have even split the atom and landed on the moon. All these things and many, many more examples show that we get around just fine. If we use our ideas to accomplish some task successfully, then it can be safely said that the way we perceived the world at that time was accurate (I'm not really sure the term, "true" is useful here).I don't think so. The senses were not designed to provide us with truth, so why should we think that they do. — Metaphysician Undercover
I was responding to your contradictory claim ... — Harry Hindu
So, IS the brain itself a material thing, or is science that reveals the nature of material things misleading us? — Harry Hindu
The distinction between lying and misleading does not take away from the main point I was making:
Seeing a bent straw in a glass of water is exactly what you would expect to see given the nature of light and that we see light, not objects. Our senses are not misleading us. Our interpretations of what our senses are telling us is misleading us. — Harry Hindu
You get at the external world by inspecting yourself? — Harry Hindu
If we use our ideas to accomplish some task successfully, then it can be safely said that the way we perceived the world at that time was accurate (I'm not really sure the term, "true" is useful here). — Harry Hindu
Matter isn't an explanation; it's an explanatory hypothesis that a particular kind of thing exists.The hypothesis explains all those sensations.Matter is not what we experience. Rather, matter is our explanation of what we experience.
We experience only sensations: physical sensations, emotional sensations, and mental sensations.
Other explanations of experience include Descartes' Evil Demon, hard solipsism, brain in a vat, etc.
Matter is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is a very good explanation of what we experience.
Newtonian Mechanics is not true. Perhaps, the matter explanation is also not true.
Thoughts? — Art48
It's logically possible that the "matter hypothesis" is false, but why would we abandon it - unless we had a superior hypothesis? — Relativist
Matter isn't an explanation; it's an explanatory hypothesis that a particular kind of thing exists.The hypothesis explains all those sensations. — Relativist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.