• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Science cannot explain consciousness, therefore....

MRC_Hans said:
Actually, this is what all science is about: To find out which of our experiences are real.

Hans
Click to expand...

Cheetah said:
Please explain Hans and Steve.

Firstly, how does that relate to what I said? Mine is a philosophical point.
Secondly, I don't think it's true at all.
It sounds like "All of science is about figuring out what is real and what not."
Yes science does a bit of that, but just about all of science concerns studying real stuff, not figuring out if it is real or not. If you want to know about unreal stuff rather study a real thing like human nature to see why some people consider nonexistent things to be real.
Science also has nothing to do with human senses, apart from in the trivial sense of "you need senses to gather data and do science". Science studies the universe in much better detail than fallible natural human senses ever could on their own.
In fact science specifically tries to exclude and compensate for human biases and fallibilities.
Click to expand...

Cheetah said:
From Wikipedia, Brain in a vat:

Read this very carefully.

and

If there is anything that you disagree with, it indicates a lack in your understanding of the argument.
I'm willing to clarify anything specific that you have a problem with, but I cannot make you understand the argument, you have to do that for yourself, it might need effort.

Remember the "brain in a vat" is an example to illustrate an unassailable argument, the same one I've been trying to explain to you.
Click to expand...

The existence of a brain, in a vat or in a skull, requires an external reality to maintain its functionality. Science is the study of that external reality.
 
:D

I get it, you also don't get it.

I'll explain.

If you attack the "brain in a vat" example, but leave argument it is meant to illustrate untouched you achieve nothing.
The "brain in a vat" example might contain an external reality, but the point it illustrates does not, so it is trivial to defeat any argument based on an external reality.

Do you understand?
 
Last edited:
Cheetah said:
:D

I get it, you also don't get it.

I'll explain.

If you attack the "brain in a vat" example, but leave argument it is meant to illustrate untouched you achieve nothing.
The "brain in a vat" example might contain an external reality, but the point it illustrates does not, so it is trivial to defeat any argument based on an external reality.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...

I understand that you have provided an example that, by your own words, does not illustrate what you want it to. You could try again to provide an example that does.
 
I find the example supplied to be perfectly understandable. And it's a well known example that quite a few people understand.
 
Steve said:
I understand that you have provided an example that, by your own words, does not illustrate what you want it to. You could try again to provide an example that does.
Click to expand...

Ha, ha...no.

I said the argument does not necessitate an external reality although the example (brain in a vat) does contain one. It is trivial to think up another example to illustrate the same point, but without an external reality.

Clearer?
 
Last edited:
Seems some are dancing too far from the music; and toward a picnic that doesn’t have any sandwiches.
 
Cheetah said:
:D

I get it, you also don't get it.

I'll explain.

If you attack the "brain in a vat" example, but leave argument it is meant to illustrate untouched you achieve nothing.
The "brain in a vat" example might contain an external reality, but the point it illustrates does not, so it is trivial to defeat any argument based on an external reality.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...

Cheetah said:
Ha, ha...no.

I said the argument does not necessitate an external reality although the example (brain in a vat) does contain one. It is trivial to think up another example to illustrate the same point, but without an external reality.

Clearer?
Click to expand...

You like that word "trivial", don't you!

If your point is that there is no external reality, and you illustrate your point by using an example that contains an external reality, your point fails. Try again with less triviality.
 
That is NOT my point at all, where do you get this?

I'm not trying to make any point, I'm explaining a simple philosophical argument. Do you understand the phrase "the map is not the territory"? Do you understand what an analogy is, why they are used?

I am sorry, if you are unable to comprehend* such an trivial (it means stoopid easy) concept, I really cannot help you then.

That begs the question, what are you doing in the philosophy section?

Philosophy is ALL about stuff like this.

FYI. It is not just philosophers, science/scientists** accept the argument I am attempting to clarify. Everyone (that understands it) agrees it is possible, however implausible.
So why some here have such difficulty really is a mystery.

Maybe read the wiki page again with an open mind and tell us where you start loosing the argument, but only if you wish to learn something and expand your knowledge.


*You actually can comprehend it, it's not that difficult, you just have to want to. I can help.
**The reason this argument is (actually has to be), accepted is because it does not make any assumptions and relies on impeccable logic. This is the basis of philosophy, and fun. Any argument you can construct, using no assumptions and impeccable logic, has to be accepted no matter how improbable or ridiculous it seems. No one might believe it actually to be true, but you cannot deny it is at least possible.
 
Last edited:
Seems some are dancing too far from the music; and toward a picnic that doesn’t have any sandwiches.
Click to expand...

You must have some questions, you sound really confused. Which part do you have problems with?
 
Steve said:
The existence of a brain, in a vat or in a skull, requires an external reality to maintain its functionality. Science is the study of that external reality.
Click to expand...

The brain in a vat is an example that shows that human knowledge is limited to subjective impressions. It implies that a brain in a vat that is stimulated by artificial impulses can believe that he is the emperor Charlemagne or Michael Jordan. Descartes' malign devil or the illusory world of Matrix are similar metaphors. The brain in a vat has not any way to know what he actually is because impressions are our only source of knowledge and they are subjective.

Likewise, the human mind has not any way to reach the real world, whatever it can be. He has to resign any objective knowledge and manage himself with subjective impressions and ideas.

Therefore, the brain in a vat is an argument used by diverse kinds of extreme subjectivism, like solipsism, subjective idealism and phenomenalism.

You say that in reality the brain is in a vat and the vat exists. Yes, but the brain has not any way to know it. This is what the example says. If men are alike this brain they have no way to contact with the external world and they never will know about its mere existence.
 
Cheetah said:
The thread has drifted, this is the philosophy section.


A philosophy discussion is not "any old idea goes", logic and consistency are of prime importance. You cannot demonstrate anything if you contradict yourself.
Click to expand...

Philosophy cannot prove anything at all. It can produce valid arguments, but NOT sound arguments. An argument is "valid" if its argument form is valid...this is where your “logic and consistency” come in.

OTOH An argument is "sound" if and only if it is valid AND all its premises are true. Establishing the "truth" of a premise is a problem in philosophy and metaphysics. Axioms, which are often the basis of a metaphysical argument, are regarded as self-evident truths that require no proof, but they cannot be shown to be true. Neither can faith-based beliefs.

Hence a philosophical or metaphysical argument utilising premises that cannot be shown to be true cannot be shown to have true conclusions.
 
I am a little surprised. I was blamed to be a cloaked solipsist. I present my own argument against solipsism and nobody says nothing.

Perhaps it was badly drafted. Some days my English is a little muddled. I can repeat it, if someone wants.
 
Cheetah said:
From Wikipedia, Brain in a vat:

Read this very carefully.


Quote:
Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat.
Click to expand...


I don't think it helps any solipsist-type argument of unreality to introduce ideas about a so-called “brain in a vat”. It's just begging all the same questions all over again. For example -

Firstly, how did any brain ever get into any such “vat” in the first place? What is the explanation for how that brain can ever exist at all if it is not a real thing as part of a real world?

… what ever produced that brain? Where did it come from?
… what is the cause of any thoughts at all in any such brain?
… how are it's thoughts produced?

Proposing the existence of a brain (in a vat or anywhere else), immediately admits the need for reality … it is assuming from the very start that a real brain does exist (it's also assuming some sort of real environment called a “vat”). That's really an end to any argument for non-reality from a brain in a vat … unless of course your Wiki quote (or you, or any philosopher) can explain how a functioning thinking brain can exist without any cause?

However, there is also a second problem with that “brain in a vat” idea as given in that Wiki quote – it says “it is not possible to tell...”, but that wording is actually implying an unspoken demand for proof or certainty that the real world exists … it's really saying “it's not possible to tell, for sure”. And we have already said from the start of this thread, that neither science nor anyone here is claiming anything so literally certain as a “proof” of anything at all in this universe (let alone a proof that reality itself exists).

So … if you are going to claim a brain in a vat, then you will need to explain how any such brain ever came into existence in the first place (not to mention also explaining how a brain of any type can produce any thoughts without real chemical reactions arising from a real sensory system).


Cheetah said:
From Wikipedia, Brain in a vat:

Read this very carefully.

Quote:
Since the argument says one cannot know whether one is a brain in a vat, then one cannot know whether most of one's beliefs might be completely false. Since, in principle, it is impossible to rule out oneself being a brain in a vat, there cannot be good grounds for believing any of the things one believes; a skeptical argument would contend that one certainly cannot know them, raising issues with the definition of knowledge.


If there is anything that you disagree with, it indicates a lack in your understanding of the argument.
I'm willing to clarify anything specific that you have a problem with, but I cannot make you understand the argument, you have to do that for yourself, it might need effort.

Remember the "brain in a vat" is an example to illustrate an unassailable argument, the same one I've been trying to explain to you.
Click to expand...


Well that second Wiki quote (directly above) actually specifically does say exactly what I just pointed out as an “unspoken demand for proof” in the previous Wiki quote! That is – look at the highlighted sentence above where is says right from the start “one cannot know" … but how many times do we have to explain to you (and to David Mo and Larry) that neither science nor anyone here is claiming to have a literal “proof” that what we detect is indeed certain to be “reality”. There is no such certainty or proof, either for this issue or for anything at all … you cannot actually prove that QM or Relativity or Evolution is a “fact”.

As I said for the first quote, and as your second quote now makes explicitly clear – your brain in a vat idea is actually a demand for the impossibility of literal proof … it's also a completely untenable and baseless construct anyway, unless and until it can explain how any such real brain can exist if no reality (such as a real brain!) exists!
 
OK, I wrote that above reply (No.1217) before reading any of the other responses to Cheetah's brain in a vat quotes (because I did not want to be influenced by what others may have said ... that's a way of trying to remain as objective as possible). But now I see that Steve already made the same point more succinctly here -

Steve said:
The existence of a brain, in a vat or in a skull, requires an external reality to maintain its functionality. Science is the study of that external reality.
Click to expand...


Indeed ... any suggestion at all of a "brain in a vat", immediately invokes external reality. So that cannot be any support at all for claims of non-reality.
 
Cheetah said:
Tassman, in the case of the "brain in a vat" is the argument not both valid and sound?
Click to expand...

No, it is not sound. An argument is "sound" if and only if it is valid AND its premises are true, this is not the case with “brain in a vat” argument. It is a ‘thought-experiment’ the purpose of which is, as with all thought-experiments, to investigate the nature of things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom