• Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    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

    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.

    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

    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.

    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

    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?

    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

    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.
  • Art48
    485
    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
    True. But Descartes's Evil Demon does not require an external material world.
  • jkop
    947
    Descartes's Evil Demon does not require an external material world.Art48

    Right, but the world is not experienced by way of sense-data, it is experienced directly. Therefore, there can be no demon in between the world and our experiences.

    The demon-problem is entirely artificial, it arises from dualism and the false assumption that experience is indirect (e.g. by way of sense-data, mental images, phenomena etc.)
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    Really? Then where is the evil demon relative to me if we do not share the same world where it's actions are causally related to my experiences? What is the medium which separates the evil demon and me if not a shared external world? I am external to the demon and the demon external to me.
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    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
    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.

    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.

    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
    This was my point. The brain in a vat thought experiment is nonsensical because it leads to an infinite regress.

    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? If not, then mad scientists putting brains in vats and advanced aliens creating simulations, and gods would have the same philosophical problem.

    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
    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.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    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

    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. It always proceeds from some fundamental assumptions, and progresses as far as it can go based on those assumptions. At this time problems are revealed, and skepticism is required to demonstrate how these problems show how science has pulled the rug out from under itself. This is what is revealed by Kuhn's conception of paradigm shift. The paradigm shift is an essential feature of science, and it is exemplative of knowledge itself. Knowledge proceeds according to a designed method (science in this case), and progresses to the point where it reveals that the method has exhausted itself, and must be replaced.

    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

    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.

    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.

    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 don't think so. The senses were not designed to provide us with truth, so why should we think that they do.
  • Arne
    836
    What do we experience?

    and

    How do we experience what we experience?

    Are different questions.
  • JuanZu
    201


    Hi,

    When we see a glass bottle in front of us, the bottle is related to us. However we cannot eliminate the bottle from the relation, because the bottle participates as an "other" different from the perception that cannot be eliminated as an "other". It is not an explanation, it is an ontological state of encounter between perception and its other. And for there to be a relationship there must be compatibility. So, if we call the bottle "matter" we must say that matter has something of perceivable and perception has something of material (and vice versa).

    But "matter" as an "other" distinct from perception cannot be eliminated from the relation.

    Even the self-relation presupposes the otherness that is me or my perception itself when it is taken as an objects.

    When I say "I" it is at least two who speak (I and I as other). And this means that "the other" encompasses the "matter", but obviously this "other" is not reduced to "matter".
  • Harry Hindu
    5.2k
    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
    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:
    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

    and then go on to question science:
    I think it's obvious from what science has revealed, that our senses grossly mislead us concerning the nature of reality.Metaphysician Undercover
    So, IS the brain itself a material thing, or is science that reveals the nature of material things misleading us?

    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
    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.

    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
    You get at the external world by inspecting yourself?

    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 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).
  • Count Timothy von Icarus
    3.2k


    Well, according to materialism, everything is made of matter. Thus, to see rabbits, trees, ants, flowers, etc. is to see matter. "What else could you be observing?" the materialist might respond.

    To say "something is not true because I can imagine some radically skeptical scenario where it is false" is not a particularly compelling counter example. Likewise, to presuppose that matter is merely an explanatory framework seems to essentially beg the question vis-a-vis a realist interpretation of materialism. I imagine they would prefer to say that knowledge of matter is rather abstracted from material things, and that matter is useful in explanations precisely because it exists, and that our knowledge of it comes through the senses.

    At any rate, the claim that we do not experience things because we only experience sensations seems to me a bit like claiming that man cannot write because he can only move his fingers around, or that man cannot drive a car but can only push pedals and turn steering wheels. The idea that we "do not experience the world because we only experience experiences, sensations, concepts, etc.," seems to suggest something of the Cartesian theater. But the materialist rejects the Cartesian humonculus on the grounds that it presupposes dualism.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    I was responding to your contradictory claim ...Harry Hindu

    No wonder I didn't understand. There was no contradictory claim.

    So, IS the brain itself a material thing, or is science that reveals the nature of material things misleading us?Harry Hindu

    Both.

    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

    I have no idea how your example is supposed to demonstrate the point you claim.

    You get at the external world by inspecting yourself?Harry Hindu

    Yes, it's the only true way, due to the fact that the senses are misleading.

    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

    Again, I don't see how your conclusion follows from your premise. Premise: I can be successful at some task. Conclusion: therefore the way I perceived the world at that time was accurate. Do you see the problem? I set a task for myself, and I make the judgement myself, that I was successful at that task. Then I conclude that because I was successful, the way I perceived the world was accurate.

    Unless the task was exclusively designed to be, (and realistically representative in that design), an accurate representation of the world, the conclusion is invalid. If that conclusion was valid, I could define "accurate perception of the world" in any way I wanted, so long as I could complete the designated task which represents this. Obviously, the task represents a very small aspect of the world, and being successful at that task doesn't indicate that my perception of "the world is accurate". Success at self-designated tasks really just demonstrates that I have some degree of understanding of my capabilities, not that I accurately perceive the world. Success at a task doesn't even prove that I know what I am doing. Socrates demonstrated this principle thousands of years ago, and the principle hasn't changed.
  • Relativist
    2.8k
    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
    Matter isn't an explanation; it's an explanatory hypothesis that a particular kind of thing exists.The hypothesis explains all those sensations.

    Newtonian mechanics is a hypothesis as well, but in terms of ontology - it just proposes that a law of nature exists. It's actually a pretty good hypothesis, even if it isn't entirely true..

    It's logically possible that the "matter hypothesis" is false, but why would we abandon it - unless we had a superior hypothesis? We only abandoned Newtonian mechanics when a better hypothesis came along; even then, it wasn't a complete abandonment. It still works perfectly fine for most applications.

    I suppose we could say that ~solipsism is also a hypothesis (albeit an intrinsic one), but there's no reason to abandon it since it hasn't been falsified.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    13.4k
    It's logically possible that the "matter hypothesis" is false, but why would we abandon it - unless we had a superior hypothesis?Relativist

    In yor mid, what is the "matter hypothesis"?
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Matter isn't an explanation; it's an explanatory hypothesis that a particular kind of thing exists.The hypothesis explains all those sensations.Relativist

    Matter can be explanation. We say "What's the matter with you?" It is asking for an explanation on what you are up to, or what is wrong with you.
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.