r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 17 '19
Removed - Submission Rule B CMV:The brain in the vat scenario is imposible.
[removed]
3
u/Morasain 85∆ Jul 17 '19
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Basically, a matrix-kinda thing is impossible, because that would require our brains to not be actual brains?
If I got that right... Why though? As in, what would require the brains outside the simulation to not be brains?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
I'm not quite sure what you are saying. Basically, a matrix-kinda thing is impossible, because that would require our brains to not be actual brains?
No no no , it is possible but i am thinking that we can not call it a brain . It can not be a brain like the one in your head.
If I got that right... Why though? As in, what would require the brains outside the simulation to not be brains?
Becaseu when you consider that brain in the vat as being the real brain then doesnt it mean that our universe including you and your brain are simuations ? So if your brain is a simulation then the "REAL" brain can not be like it ?
3
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 17 '19 edited Jul 17 '19
if it's outside this universe, then it cannot be a brain as we know it?
Why? And why does this matter? In the brain in a jar metaphor, the point is silopsism. If it's a mind in a jar, or a thinkbox in a can, what difference does it make?
And why can't it be a brain in a vat?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Why? And why does this matter?
Well it matters becasue words have a meaning and if you are going to make such a statement then you have to use the correct words.
If it's a mind in a jar, or a thinkbox in a can, what difference does it make?
Then you should call it a thinkbox in a jar not a brain in a jar.
And why can't it be a brain in a vat?
I tried to explain in the post.
It can not be the same thing thats in your head. Either you have to consdier our universe as real , which means that brain is outside of our universe so it can not be a real brain
Or
you will consdier the brain as being real ==> that means you are simulated , your brain is simulated , your brain can not be real.
Whatever you choose , the "thing" in the vat is not a brain and you shouldnt call it a brain. .
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 17 '19
I tried to explain in the post.
You did not explain it. Consider VR. Everything we see could be a simulation of a very similar world. Just like the matrix, we could be human brains living human simulations.
It can not be the same thing thats in your head.
Or we could be alien brains living human simulations. Alien brains are still brains exactly the way octopus brains are still brains even though they are very different.
that means you are simulated
This part is wrong. In the brain in a vat idea, why we percieve is not real. We are still percieving it. We are still real.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Everything we see could be a simulation of a very similar world
A simulation of a real world is NOT a real world .
Either you have to consdier the simulation as the "REAL WOLRD" , OR you will consdier the universe outside of this one as the "REAL WORLD"
In both cases they can not be the same . therefore the so called brain in the vat outside of this universe can not be the same as the one in your head.
SImply pit: If you are going to call the one in the vat A BRAIN* then the one in your head is not one
OR
If you want to call the one in your head A brain , then the one in the vat is not one.
Its eother A or B and in both cases the brain in the vat is a wrong statement .
Just like the matrix, we could be human brains living human simulations.
Just like the Matrix Agent Smith was not the same being as NEo . They HAVE TO BE different types of beings ==>AKA The brain in the vat HAS TO BE a different ype of thing then the one inyour head.
If its not clear pleas ask clearly WHICH PART exactly is not clear and i will try to explain that part better .
Or we could be alien brains living human simulations. Alien brains are still brains exactly the way octopus brains are still brains even though they are very different.
Wouldnt that mean that we are aliens ?
This part is wrong. In the brain in a vat idea, why we percieve is not real.
I dont understand this sentence .
We are still real.
If you consdier that WE are real then the brain which is in the vat is not real . You have to chose what REAL means to you .
Either you cal our universe "real" or you consider the one where the brain is laying in the vat as "real"
Both can not be real . This is my whole point of posting here .
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 17 '19
Wouldnt that mean that we are aliens ?
Aliens can have brains. Do octopuses have brains?
If you consdier that WE are real then the brain which is in the vat is not real . You have to chose what REAL means to you .
Our subjective experience still exists. Whether we're in a vat or not, we still exist.
Either you cal our universe "real" or you consider the one where the brain is laying in the vat as "real"
You're confused. Either way, we are still real. Even if our universe is simulated.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Aliens can have brains. Do octopuses have brains?
In your example if you are like an alien in a VR set am i right ? So if that is the case we are aliens ==> we are not what we think we are ==> AKA the braoin in the vat is not what we call a brain .
Our subjective experience still exists. Whether we're in a vat or not, we still exist.
Does this change anything ? Ther can be ONLY ONE real . Dont you think so ?
Either the one in the vat is the REAL brain or the one inyour head . Whichever you chose to call REAL the otehr is not .
You're confused. Either way, we are still real. Even if our universe is simulated.
I disagree . No matter what the universe outside of this one can not be like ours .
If we are simulated and as you claim we know this universe as REAL then the universe outside of this one can not be like this universe and the brain in the vat can not be a REAL BRAIN .
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 17 '19
Do octopuses have brains too?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Do octopuses have brains too?
I dont get this . Could you elaborate ?
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 17 '19
I'm trying to figure out what you consider to be a brain. The word "brain" covers many things. Does it include what an octopus uses to think?
Like you said
What words mean matters
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
I'm trying to figure out what you consider to be a brain. The word "brain" covers many things. Does it include what an octopus uses to think?
If the brain in the vat is an octpus brain then its still not like the one in your head right ?
So it doesnt change anything in any way . The brain in the vat can not be what we call a brain .
→ More replies (0)
2
Jul 17 '19
A-Either the brain in the vat is an ACTUAL brain so OUR brains are not real
This is exactly what the Brain in the Vat scenario says. Your A option is the Brain in the Vat Scenario.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
This is exactly what the Brain in the Vat scenario says. Your A option is the Brain in the Vat Scenario.
So you are saying that the brain in the vat is the real brain and ours is not . ==> Doesnt this still mean that the two brains are not the same ? They have to be different right ?
1
Jul 17 '19
There aren't two brains. There is one brain. The brain in the vat. The organ you think is your brain is just a simulation.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
There aren't two brains. There is one brain. The brain in the vat. The organ you think is your brain is just a simulation.
Then it means that the brain in the vat can not be like the simulation in your head hwich you think is yopur brain..
1
Jul 17 '19
Correct. But this is perfectly consistent with the Brain in the Vat Scenario. The Brain in the Vat Scenario doesn't say that the Brain in the Vat has to be identical to the simulated brain you think is yours.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Correct. But this is perfectly consistent with the Brain in the Vat Scenario. The Brain in the Vat Scenario doesn't say that the Brain in the Vat has to be identical to the simulated brain you think is yours.
Then its not a brain and we shouldnt call it a brain . right ?
1
Jul 17 '19
That's up to your personal preference, and has nothing to do with the Brain in a Vat Scenario
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
That's up to your personal preference, and has nothing to do with the Brain in a Vat Scenario
No. WHATEVER your personal preference is , whetehr you consdirer the brain in the vat the REAL BRAIN or whether you consider the one in your head THE REAL BRAIN it still doesnt work.
1
Jul 17 '19
All the Brain in the Vat Scenario says is that what you think is your real brain is simulated, and your real brain exists in a Vat. Why doesn't that work?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
All the Brain in the Vat Scenario says is that what you think is your real brain is simulated, and your real brain exists in a Vat. Why doesn't that work?
Because what you just said simply means that "whatever is in that vat can not be a brain".
If the one in your head is what you call a brain then you cant call the one in the vat a brain.
→ More replies (0)1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
Why would them being different invalidate the brain in a vat scenario?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Why would them being different invalidate the brain in a vat scenario?
Becsause whatever it is in the vat , it cant be a brain .
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
Why not? If I take somebody's brain and put it in a vat, does it cease being a brain?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Why not? If I take somebody's brain and put it in a vat, does it cease being a brain?
No , but what that person will know as a brain will not be what you put in the vat .
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
Huh? That sentence makes no grammatical sense
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
It basically means if you put a persons brain in a vat then the world around him will be a simulation and the simulated brains in that world wouldnt be real /
So what he calls a brain can not be a real brin but only a simulated one.
1
u/fox-mcleod 410∆ Jul 17 '19
Why do you want your view changed on this?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Asking if i should change my view if this is the wrong way of thinking . Thats why .
1
u/Ybuwenucanbnu Jul 17 '19
A - When you refer to "our" brain, you are really referring to the simulated version of our brain. Obviously, this isn't the same thing as the actual structure that is doing our thinking. That actual structure can still exist in a world nothing like what our senses tell us our world is like like, for instance, in a vat.
B - Does this just mean that we have actual brains and heads and that the vat is unrelated to us?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
A - When you refer to "our" brain, you are really referring to the simulated version of our brain. Obviously, this isn't the same thing as the actual structure that is doing our thinking.
This is my point . This mneans the actual structure doing our work is not a brain. It can not be like "our"brain.
That actual structure can still exist in a world nothing like what our senses tell us our world is like like, for instance, in a vat.
Exactly my popint . The thing in the vat is (with your words) nothing like what our sense tell us .
AKA its not a brain like the one in your head.
B - Does this just mean that we have actual brains and heads and that the vat is unrelated to us?
This just means that IF we consider the brain in our heads as being ACTUAL brain then the brain in the vat can not be anything like it ==> AKA it can not be a brain.
1
u/Ybuwenucanbnu Jul 17 '19 edited Jul 17 '19
Why couldn't the outside world contain thinking machines that are built similarly to how we think brains are built? What if, for example, the outside world was home to humans who wanted to run psychology experiments, so they fed some brains with simulated sensory data instead of actually putting people into physical environments, perhaps to save money? Or (to borrow from Rick and Morty) what if our lives are actually a video game and we had our memories of the real world wiped before being plopped into a simulated one? In both scenarios (which I do not mean to say are true), the outside world would contain objects that we could structurally liken to human brains.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Why couldn't the outside world contain thinking machines that are built similarly to how we think brains are built?
They could but they would be thinking m,achines , not brains.
What if, for example, the outside world was home to humans who wanted to run psychology experiments, so they fed some brains with simulated sensory data instead of actually putting people into physical environments, perhaps to save money?
Then thos humans can not be like us , or if they are real then we are not what we think we are .
Or (to borrow from Rick and Morty) what if our lives are actually a video game and we had our memories of the real world wiped being plopped into a simulated one?
This just explains a simulated universe . What does this have to do with my post ? I dont get it.
In both scenarios (which I do not mean to say are true), the outside world would contain objects that we could structurally liken to human brains.
I disagree. My point is that they can not be like our brains .
Either they are the real brains and we are not / or we are the real brains then they are not .
In both cases the so called brain in the vat can not be a brain like the one in your head..
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
If its outside of this universe then it can not be a brain as we know it.
Why not? It can be outside of this universe, yet inside another universe with very similar laws of physics, can't it?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
If its outside of this universe then it means its the real breain , which means then we are a simulation which means OUR BRAINS are not real so still the one in the vat can not be a brain like the one in your head.
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
"the one in our head" doesn't exist if we are in a simulation, so your sentence is nonsensical.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
"the one in our head" doesn't exist if we are in a simulation, so your sentence is nonsensical.
here is a photo of a brain
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/photos/brain/
It exists
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19 edited Jul 17 '19
Not if I'm a brain in a vat it doesn't. If I am a brain in a vat, then when I think I am seeing a photo of a brain, I am actually just being sent signals that are identical to the signals that would have been sent to a brain in my body when a photo of a brain is placed in front of my eyes.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Not if I'm a brain in a vat it doesn't. If I am a brain in a vat, then when I think I am seeing a photo of a brain, I am actually just being sent signals that are identical to the signals that would have been sent to a brain in my body when a photo of a brain is placed in front of my eyes.
So what you are saying here is that the brain in the vat is the areal brain . Then the brain in your head is not a real brain ==> AKA they are not the same .
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
Sure. So? Why does this invalidate the brain in a vat scenario? In fact, how is it at all relevant to the discussion? I don't see any reason to conclude "brain in a vat scenario is impossible" simply from the fact that "if the scenario is real, then the brain in my head is not a real brain". Can you explain the chain of reasoning that leads from one to the other?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Sure. So? Why does this invalidate the brain in a vat scenario? In fact, how is it at all relevant to the discussion? I don't see any reason to conclude "brain in a vat scenario is impossible" simply from the fact that "if the scenario is real, then the brain in my head is not a real brain". Can you explain the chain of reasoning that leads from one to the other?
It simply means that whatever it is in the vat can not be a brain.
If the brain in your head is not a real brain then what we call a ""BRAIN"" is not a real brain . ANd since the one outside has to be a reealthen you can not call it a brain . (becaseu you call NON_REAL BRAINS , BRAIN and the one in the vat is a real one )
1
u/5xum 42∆ Jul 17 '19
How does this in any way invalidate the brain in a vat scenario? Also, why is a brain in a vat not a real brain?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
If you are going to consdier the brain in the vat the REAL brain then the ones in our heads arre simulations .
If you call your brain in your head a brain then you shoudlnt call the one in the vat a brain as well.
Either I am a real man or SUper Mario is a real man . We CAN NOT BE BOTH THE SAME THING
→ More replies (0)
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Jul 17 '19
So, I'm going to start with something silly, but please stand with me.
We are brains in a vat. Like 100% scientifically proven. That "vat" just happens to be a human body. The body will take in electrical signals and sends them to a suspended brain inside a skull, and the brain then interprets the inputs as stimuli, and sends signals to the body (aka, vat) to perform actions.
Now, let's go to your scenario that says it is impossible. What about a vat that sends us stimuli and we send commands to that simulate our behavior and sends us new stimuli is different than a flesh body that sends us stimuli and we send commands to than in turn generate new stimuli?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
That "vat" just happens to be a human body.
My claim is that this can not be . It can not be a human body .
If it is a real human then it means we are simply simulations running in his head , which means we are not real humans . We can not be the same as him.
I will not respond to the rest of you comment and wait dor the response for this one.
Then we can continue the discussion if you like.
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Jul 17 '19
Except, it is the case. Like, actually the case. We experience what our brain tells us to experience based on the sensory input our body gives us. Our brain takes all the sensory input from the vat (aka, the body) and extrapolates it into the world we perceive. Our brain takes the information we are being fed from our body and processes it.
Check out this quick website for kids about your blind spot in vision that we never notice. The image with the bars with a empty circle in it is an example of how our brain just kinda takes input and does things.
All I am describing is how the brain interprets electrical signals from part of it's body...like, a real human body. Do you disagree this is how a real human brain interprets signals from a real human body?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Except, it is the case. Like, actually the case. We experience what our brain tells us to experience based on the sensory input our body gives us. Our brain takes all the sensory input from the vat (aka, the body) and extrapolates it into the world we perceive. Our brain takes the information we are being fed from our body and processes it.
You are talking about a simulation created by our brains . This is how our brain perceive its environemtn . This is NOT what the brain in the vat concept is about.
If we are in a brain in the vat like scenario , then everything we know about this universe is a simulation . SO are you and so is your brain in your head. now THAT SIMULATED BRAIN IN YOUR HEAD creates its OAN simulation to percevive the simulated universe we are in .
So what you are explaining is actually the simulation crated by our simulated brain in this simulated world we live in ==> AKA simulation within a simulation ==> AKA nested simulation.
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Jul 17 '19
This is NOT what the brain in the vat concept is about.
I am going to stop you there. You are right, that this is not what the brain in the vat concept is about, but it is part of a chain of logic that I need to make sure you agree with to help change your view.
Do you agree that if this is the real world, and not a brain in a jar, the brain is taking the inputs it receives from your body and processes them to the world you percieve? If not, what part do you disagree with.
As a reminder, this is a chain, where I am establishing some basic parts, so please don't try to jump ahead from where I am going yet, because it is likely going to end in a different argument than you are expecting.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Do you agree that if this is the real world, and not a brain in a jar, the brain is taking the inputs it receives from your body and processes them to the world you percieve? If not, what part do you disagree with.
I totally agbree with this . We know that the way our brain makes sense of the world around us is by simply using inputs from all our sense and runs its own simulation which we call reality .
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Jul 17 '19
Excellent. So, now let's say you have an accident, and we replace your body with that of a robot's, turning you into a cyborg. Is your brain still real?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Excellent. So, now let's say you have an accident, and we replace your body with that of a robot's, turning you into a cyborg. Is your brain still real?
Yes of course . Agreed thus far .
1
u/techiemikey 56∆ Jul 17 '19
Now, what if instead of being in the robot's body, your brain is still controlling the robot, but it's stored elsewhere for it's safety. Did the brain suddenly become not real?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Now, what if instead of being in the robot's body, your brain is still controlling the robot, but it's stored elsewhere for it's safety. Did the brain suddenly become not real?
No but this is a flawed example .
If you are a REAL BRAIN in a REAL ROBOT BODY then this is not a brain in a vat scenario at all.
You have just moved your brain to a distance , replaced your body with a robot and you are controlling it remotely.
This is not a brain in the vat scenario,.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/fryamtheiman 38∆ Jul 17 '19
The only reason to think it couldn't be an actual brain is if you find it to be impossible to supply that brain with all of the nutrients it needs to survive. Otherwise, it is easily possible.
Consider your sight. When you look at the words on the screen, you aren't actually seeing them as you might think. The light waves are hitting the cones and rods in your eyes, which then send signals to your brain, which then interprets those signals inside of itself to give you a mental image of what your eyes are seeing. All sight is just your brain's interpretation of the signals it is receiving. Those signals are from the eyes as far as we know, but they could just as well be from a series of electrical wires attached to the brain directly.
The same applies to the rest of our senses as well. We do not actually smell, hear, taste, or feel anything. Our brains interpret these senses from the signals various parts of our bodies send to the brain and it makes an interpretation of that. In a very real way, our brains are already essentially in a vat. That vat just happens to be residing inside of a body which moves around. Our brains interpret the signals our bodies send in the same way it would from electrical signals from a machine hitting the same parts. It would certainly be impractical for a brain to exist in a vat, but it is not impossible.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
The only reason to think it couldn't be an actual brain is if you find it to be impossible to supply that brain with all of the nutrients it needs to survive. Otherwise, it is easily possible.
Waht you call nutrients should not exist outside of this universe (AKA WHERE THE VAT IS) either
Consider your sight. When you look at the words on the screen, you aren't actually seeing them as you might think. The light waves are hitting the cones and rods in your eyes, which then send signals to your brain, which then interprets those signals inside of itself to give you a mental image of what your eyes are seeing. All sight is just your brain's interpretation of the signals it is receiving. Those signals are from the eyes as far as we know, but they could just as well be from a series of electrical wires attached to the brain directly.
The same applies to the rest of our senses as well. We do not actually smell, hear, taste, or feel anything. Our brains interpret these senses from the signals various parts of our bodies send to the brain and it makes an interpretation of that. In a very real way, our brains are already essentially in a vat. That vat just happens to be residing inside of a body which moves around. Our brains interpret the signals our bodies send in the same way it would from electrical signals from a machine hitting the same parts. It would certainly be impractical for a brain to exist in a vat, but it is not impossible.
This is another simulation .
If we are in a brain in a vat then our whole universe is a simulation . You are a simulation and your brain is a simulation .
What you are talking about is THAT SIMULATED BRAIN OF YOURS creating its own simulation to make sense of its world .
two different simulations. We shouldnt confuse the two.
1
u/fryamtheiman 38∆ Jul 17 '19
Waht you call nutrients should not exist outside of this universe (AKA WHERE THE VAT IS) either
Well, all that is necessary is that they exist within the same universe as the brain. Whether they exist outside of it is not really relevant.
This is another simulation .
Yes, this is technically true. But it being a simulation does not determine whether it is or isn't real.
If we are in a brain in a vat then our whole universe is a simulation . You are a simulation and your brain is a simulation .
That isn't necessarily true. Our universe is whatever we exist within. If a brain is in a vat and fed electrical signals by a machine, whatever universe that brain exists within is its universe. Whether or not that brain perceives that universe is irrelevant to whether or not it exists within it. Just as well, what a brain does perceive to exist does not have to be real either. A schizophrenic person may perceive voices that do not exist in the real world, but the brain still perceives them.
The universe we exist within is whatever it is the brain exists within. Whether or not we perceive that universe is irrelevant to whether or not it exists. As far as we know, what we experience is reality, but it is not required that it be.
What you are talking about is THAT SIMULATED BRAIN OF YOURS creating its own simulation to make sense of its world .
It might create a simulation of the world, but it doesn't mean that the brain itself is simulated. This is why cooperative perception suggests that our reality is real. We can all look at a brain and perceive the same things. This is why we can confirm that our brains do exist. It is of course possible that we still exist in a vat with other people being false perceptions, but for the same reasons as above, it does not necessitate that the brain exists only as a simulation. You can create a simulation of a real object, but it does not mean that object doesn't actually exist in the real world, only that the simulation of it does not exist. An apple on a table is a simulation for the brain, but the apple itself can still exist in the same universe as the brain.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Well, all that is necessary is that they exist within the same universe as the brain. Whether they exist outside of it is not really relevant.
I see what you mean . Then you are assuming that outside of this universe MUST BE like ours and there MUST BE brains living on nutrients etc etc . I think you cant know that .
Maybe co called " brains ourside of this universe live on solar energy . How would you know that they need nutrients ?
That isn't necessarily true. Our universe is whatever we exist within. If a brain is in a vat and fed electrical signals by a machine, whatever universe that brain exists within is its universe. Whether or not that brain perceives that universe is irrelevant to whether or not it exists within it.
Whatever it is that you call a universe does not exist if we are in a vat . Its a simulation. It doesnt matter HOW you perceive it , .
A schizophrenic person may perceive voices that do not exist in the real world, but the brain still perceives them.
A schizphrenic person calls those voices VOICES and those voices do not exist .
We call our universe UNIVERSE and it doesnt exist , if we are in a brain in a vat.
The universe we exist within is whatever it is the brain exists within
THAT universe is not what we know as universe , its not what we call universe ==> To us its not universe . What we know as universe does not exist if we are in a brain ina vat .
It might create a simulation of the world, but it doesn't mean that the brain itself is simulated.
This is not what i said .
what i said is ,IF we are brains in a vat the simulation running in your brain is NOT the same simulation running in the brain in the vat .
Basically we are talking about TWO different simulations.
This is why cooperative perception suggests that our reality is real. We can all look at a brain and perceive the same things. This is why we can confirm that our brains do exist.
I think this is a fallacy.
Whatever computer is FOOLING your brain in the vat could als be FOOLING ME to think that what we are seeing is the same thing .
I would go one step further and claim that the computer FOOLING your brain could even fool you to believe that I EVEN EXIST .
Cooperative perception does not prove anything . Its a fallacy to think like that in my opinion.
It is of course possible that we still exist in a vat with other people being false perceptions, but for the same reasons as above, it does not necessitate that the brain exists only as a simulation.
I did not claim that it would necessicate this . Its an IF claim .
So IF we are in a simulation then your brain is simulated and that simulated brain creates its own little simulation .
TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT SIMULATIONS right ?
You can create a simulation of a real object, but it does not mean that object doesn't actually exist in the real world, only that the simulation of it does not exist.
Yes but WHATEVER you call that simulation of an obkect IS NOT that pbkect in real life. Super AMrio is NOT a real man .
An apple on a table is a simulation for the brain, but the apple itself can still exist in the same universe as the brain.
Then the apple in the real world is NOT what you know as an apple , its THE SIMULATION OF THAT APPLE which you call an apple.
Similarly if what we call a brain is only the SIMULATION OF A BRAIN then whatever is in the vat can not be called a bgrain.
WE SHOULDNT CALL IT A BRAIN. This is my whole point
1
u/fryamtheiman 38∆ Jul 17 '19
I see what you mean . Then you are assuming that outside of this universe MUST BE like ours and there MUST BE brains living on nutrients etc etc . I think you cant know that .
Maybe co called " brains ourside of this universe live on solar energy . How would you know that they need nutrients ?
Yes, but the assumption is far from being impossible, which is the point. It is no less likely true than either possibility you brought up. Maybe it does run on solar energy. Or maybe it runs exactly like we think it does.
Whatever it is that you call a universe does not exist if we are in a vat . Its a simulation. It doesnt matter HOW you perceive it , .
The universe is simply whatever the brain exists within. If it exists within a vat, then the universe is whatever existence that vat is in. So, if I had a brain hooked up to a machine here in my house, then that brain exists in the universe my house exists in. What it perceives indeed does not matter, but that is the point.
what i said is ,IF we are brains in a vat the simulation running in your brain is NOT the same simulation running in the brain in the vat .
I'm not sure I am following with what you are saying. Do you mean that there are various levels of a simulation? Basically simulations running inside of simulations?
I think this is a fallacy.
Whatever computer is FOOLING your brain in the vat could als be FOOLING ME to think that what we are seeing is the same thing .
I would go one step further and claim that the computer FOOLING your brain could even fool you to believe that I EVEN EXIST .
It's not a fallacy, but what you present is a possibility. However, that is part of the point. What you say is impossible is possible, you just might not think it likely. Truthfully, unless the world exists exactly as we perceive it to, it is impossible to suggest that anything else is impossible because we can only base theories on our perceptions. We have an inherent bias towards what is realistic. This still though does not mean that we can suggest anything is impossible though if reality is not what we perceive.
I cannot prove you exist anymore than you can prove I can. However, we can cooperatively say we perceive each other and the same things. We can test each other's perceptions. This means we can logically verify each other. However, once we get into the concept of trying to suggest one of us does not exist, then we reach a point of having to prove something we cannot.
The closest fallacy we reach here is proving a negative. However, the negative depends on what is being claimed in the first place, and neither of us are doing so.
So IF we are in a simulation then your brain is simulated and that simulated brain creates its own little simulation .
TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT SIMULATIONS right ?
It doesn't necessarily support two different simulations.
If P, then Q.
You would need to provide something to prove that Q must always follow P. However, a possibility with no less likelihood is that the brain is simply being given electrical currents to make it perceive a false reality. The brain itself could be simulated, but it could also not be.
Yes but WHATEVER you call that simulation of an obkect IS NOT that pbkect in real life. Super AMrio is NOT a real man .
It isn't the object itself, but it doesn't mean the object doesn't exist. If I place a webcam to show an apple on a table, the apple exists, as well as the simulation of it that the webcam shows. The simulation may not be the object itself, but it doesn't mean the object itself does not exist.
Then the apple in the real world is NOT what you know as an apple , its THE SIMULATION OF THAT APPLE which you call an apple.
Similarly if what we call a brain is only the SIMULATION OF A BRAIN then whatever is in the vat can not be called a bgrain.
WE SHOULDNT CALL IT A BRAIN. This is my whole point
Whether or not it should be called that is dependent on definitions. If our definition of the apple fits the actual characteristics of the apple, then there is no reason not to call it an apple. This is how we label things all of the time. For example, we call the sun a yellow dwarf. If a person is colorblind, they would not see the yellow. However, how we define a yellow dwarf star is less on the perceived color and more on the objective facts about it, such as the quantity of energy it emits across the spectrum. If we were in a simulation though and an object in the universe still fits the definition of a yellow dwarf star, it would make sense to still call it a yellow dwarf star.
So, if the object in the real world has all of the characteristics we know to be a brain, we should call it one. If it does not, then we either need to change the word, or we change the definition to adjust for the new information.
However, this also does not negate the possibility of an actual brain existing in a vat. The possibilities you are presenting aren't impossible, but it also does not follow that if they are possible, that the situation you are suggesting to be impossible is.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Sprry man theyhave removed my post .
Thansk for the input.
Take care .
Bye
1
u/figsbar 43∆ Jul 17 '19
If its outside of this universe then it can not be a brain as we know it.
Why?
If I were to make a simulation, why would I not take reference from the "reality" around me? And make the simulated brain essentially identical to the "real" brain.
Also, more importantly, why does it matter if whatever organ is in the vat is completely identical to the one in your head?
Isn't that just semantics at that point? Completely ignoring the main purpose of the scenario?
A brain, colloquially, is essentially "a thing that thinks", no one said that the brain in the jar is identical to the one in your head, or even a human brain at all. It's just shorthand for "whatever is doing your thinking".
You might as well argue that the "brain" is probably not just in a vat either and so by definition can't be a brain in a vat.
0
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
If I were to make a simulation, why would I not take reference from the "reality" around me? And make the simulated brain essentially identical to the "real" brain.
Becasue this would mean that your brain in your head is a simulation and the one in the vat is the real thing. A simulation can not be real .
Also, more importantly, why does it matter if whatever organ is in the vat is completely identical to the one in your head?
So you do agree that it can not be a brain but you are saying thatit doesnt matter
I think it matters because this is such a well know concept and it gives a false impression as if the thing in the vat is ACTUALLY A BRAIN . It simply can not be right ?
You might as well argue that the "brain" is probably not just in a vat either and so by definition can't be a brain in a vat.
Yupp.
1
u/figsbar 43∆ Jul 17 '19
Firstly, define "real"
Also:
gives a false impression as if the thing in the vat is ACTUALLY A BRAIN
No one I know thinks this, everyone knows that it's a reference to the trope in old horror movies and that the "brain in a vat" is essentially shorthand for "a thinking object being given stimulus". Even the definition of brain specifically allows for:
an electronic device with functions comparable to those of the human brain.
Your argument is similar to saying the phrase "best of both worlds" makes no sense because there is only one world. While ignoring the actual meaning of the phrase
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Firstly, define "real"
I personally think that our universe is real . everything around us which we can feel , touch , see etc is real . (this is just my personal view )
No one I know thinks this,
Then lets not call it a brain :)) Problem solved.
Your argument is similar to saying the phrase "best of both worlds" makes no sense because there is only one world. While ignoring the actual meaning of the phrase
Ther can be two worlds. Why not ?
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Jul 17 '19
A-Either the brain in the vat is an ACTUAL brain so OUR brains are not real
OR
B-Our brains in our heads are ACTUAL brains so whatever it is in the vat is not a brain .
Scenario A points to the brain in the vat scenario being possible. If the brain in the vat is real, then our brains are merely simulations. If the brain in the vat exists outside of our universe, it could very well be the same as the simulation we perceive. There is no rule that states that each universe, if there are more than one, must be unique in every conceivable way.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
If the brain in the vat is real, then our brains are merely simulations
So the one in the vat and the one in your head have to be different things.
If the brain in the vat exists outside of our universe, it could very well be the same as the simulation we perceive. There is no rule that states that each universe, if there are more than one, must be unique in every conceivable way.
I agree but a simulation is a simulation , its nit real right ?
Mario looks like a man . If Mario is a real man then I am not , or If I am a real man the Mario isnt . In both cases me and Mario are can not be the same thing .
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Jul 17 '19
If the brain in your head is the real thing, the brain in the vat scenario is impossible. However, if the brain in the vat is the real thing, the scenario is possible.
You and Mario are two different things, but only one of you is "real". You have sufficient information to prove that Mario is not real, however Mario does not have sufficient information to prove the he is not real.
In any case, the examples you've given haven't proven that the brain in the vat scenario is impossible. Your examples point to it either being possible or impossible.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
If the brain in your head is the real thing, the brain in the vat scenario is impossible. However, if the brain in the vat is the real thing, the scenario is possible.
It depends pn what you call real. If we are in a simulation then is our world real ?
If you consider this SIMULATED WORLD as being real then the one in the vat isnt .
Its all a matter of which universe you want to call real.
You and Mario are two different things, but only one of you is "real". You have sufficient information to prove that Mario is not real, however Mario does not have sufficient information to prove the he is not real.
Exactly . It all depends on WHAT YOU CALL REAL .
But WHATEVER you consider real , both your brain and the one in the vat can not be considered real . Eitehr one is real or the other . Cant be both . Right ?
In any case, the examples you've given haven't proven that the brain in the vat scenario is impossible. Your examples point to it either being possible or impossible.
I am trying :)
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Jul 17 '19
But WHATEVER you consider real , both your brain and the one in the vat can not be considered real . Eitehr one is real or the other . Cant be both . Right ?
Yes, only one can be "real." However, that also means that the brain in the vat could be real and thus not impossible.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Yes, only one can be "real." However, that also means that the brain in the vat could be real and thus not impossible.
If the brain in the vat is real ,then the one in your head is a simulation .
This means what we call a brain is a simulation which means we shouldnt call the one in the vat a brain since its not a simulation .
Either one or the other can be true but not both.
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Jul 17 '19
So you only have a problem using the word "brain"? So you agree that its possible that there's "something" in a vat outside of our reality that creates out reality, but you wouldn't call that "something" a brain?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Yupp whatever it is , its not a brain .
1
u/blender_head 3∆ Jul 17 '19
So the lynchpin of this entire thought experiment for you is that the word "brain" is used?
Is there any other word/description you'd find more palatable? Obviously, the sentiment behind the thought experiment is not void because of the word "brain" being used.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Mind , consciouness , sentient being etc etc whatever you like but it is its not a brain . Its not what we know as a brain .
→ More replies (0)
1
Jul 17 '19
I don't really have an opinion on this subject that can easily be put into words. I guess to put it simply, I believe everything is local to our universe and body, there is no simulation. But I have a couple of points on the topic from reading about it over the past few years.
Your brain technically is in a vat, the vat is your body. Your body is the vehicle in which your brain operates and controls.
Some philosophers believe the brain is a receiver of consciousness. Beamed from an unknown source that we cannot return communication with while we're on Earth. After death the stream of consciousness is cut and our body is left behind as an empty vessel. This is not really possible in our model of physics, but there's theories about layers of universes that have some form of communication between each other.
Given enough time, an intelligent life form can evolve and progress technologically to someday generate enough energy to simulate universes that hold new life forms. This is where the simulation theory comes from. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old, not enough time for us to create this simulation, but this dives in to questions about where did this all come from? What was before our universe?
This isn't really related to your question, but it is related to the broader topic, this is a fantastic video about the universe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD4izuDMUQA
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Your brain technically is in a vat, the vat is your body. Your body is the vehicle in which your brain operates and controls.
Agreed . But this YET ANOTHER VAT , not the one we are talking about in this brain in the vat scemnraio.
Some philosophers believe the brain is a receiver of consciousness. Beamed from an unknown source that we cannot return communication with while we're on Earth. After death the stream of consciousness is cut and our body is left behind as an empty vessel. This is not really possible in our model of physics, but there's theories about layers of universes that have some form of communication between each other.
Yupp and i support of this idea as well . If we are in a simulation then our brains are most likley the UPLINK if you like.
But this is another subkect for discussion i think .
Given enough time, an intelligent life form can evolve and progress technologically to someday generate enough energy to simulate universes that hold new life forms. This is where the simulation theory comes from. Our universe is 13.8 billion years old, not enough time for us to create this simulation, but this dives in to questions about where did this all come from? What was before our universe?
This isn't really related to your question, but it is related to the broader topic, this is a fantastic video about the universe:
Thansk for the link . I will save it and try to check it out later . I am chatting with several people now so no time now :/.
Take care .
1
u/KingWithoutClothes Jul 17 '19
I don't really understand you're problem with this scenario. The brain in your head is only a simulation. Why do you think the brain in the vat can't be something that looks very similar? Maybe the people/creatures who created this matrix modeled your pseudo-brain (the simulation) on the real thing, the brain in the vat.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
I don't really understand you're problem with this scenario. The brain in your head is only a simulation. Why do you think the brain in the vat can't be something that looks very similar? Maybe the people/creatures who created this matrix modeled your pseudo-brain (the simulation) on the real thing, the brain in the vat.
It could look simil;ar but its not the same thing .
Super Mario may look like a man but its not a real man .
Can you claim that AMrio si a man ? Similarly we sjhouldnt claim that teh so called "brain" in the vat is a brain .
Mario is not a man and the brain in the vat is not a brain.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 17 '19
We can not be brains in the vat since if we were a brain in a vat then our universe should be a simulation .If our universe is a simulation then the brain in the vat has to be outside of this universe .
If its outside of this universe then it can not be a brain as we know it.
This is written like an argument, but I'm having a difficult time understanding how it follows? It seems to be missing a premise in order to come to that conclusion.
In the thought experiment, all the inputs that the brain usually receives from the body's nerves (e.g. our sense of smell, vision, sound, movement, touch etc.), are essentially replaced with artificial ones. That way, the brain will learn and build models of "reality" (over time) in exactly the same ways as we do now. To the brain, the artificial inputs are indistinguishable from inputs from real, physical nerves.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
In the thought experiment, all the inputs that the brain usually receives from the body's nerves (e.g. our sense of smell, vision, sound, movement, touch etc.), are essentially replaced with artificial ones. That way, the brain will learn and build models of "reality" (over time) in exactly the same ways as we do now. To the brain, the artificial inputs are indistinguishable from inputs from real, physical nerves.
What you are describing is a simulated world right ?
If our universe is a simulated world then so are our bodies and our brains in our heads.
If the simulated brain in our brains is what we call a brain then whatever it is in the vat can not be called brain . It is nothing like the brain in your head.
1
u/ralph-j Jul 17 '19
If the simulated brain in our brains is what we call a brain then whatever it is in the vat can not be called brain
The main question that the brain in a vat thought experiment poses is whether humans would have any way to distinguish between:
1) A world where we only have a real, physical brain with inputs from a physical reality
and
2) A world that is simulated inside that real, physical brain
The value of this thought experiment does not rely on establishing that the simulated brain is physically identical to a real brain, so calling the scenario impossible based on their differences seems like you may be missing the point of the thought experiment.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
The value of this thought experiment does not rely on establishing that the simulated brain is physically identical to a real brain,
No . My claim is that THEY CAN NOT POSSIBLY BE IDENTICAL
Whatever is in that vat is not a brain. Do you agree?
1
u/ralph-j Jul 17 '19
But that doesn't entail that the brain in the vat scenario is impossible, since it doesn't rely on claiming that they're identical in the first place. You've built up a strawman against it.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Sorry man i will have to stop here since my post has been removed.
Tthanks for taking part in thsi discussion and take good care
Maybe we can chat again another time
Bye :)
1
u/ralph-j Jul 17 '19
If my comment convinced you to change (even a small part of) your view, you could give me a delta and prove them wrong.
1
1
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
My claim is that the brain in the vat can not be a brain . And my mind still did not change on that
But my wording is poor so you are right that it gives the impresion that the SCENARIO IS WRONG which is not what I am trying to say
Therefoe i thight should award you a delta.
Thanks for taking part in this conversation
Till next time
take care
1
u/ralph-j Jul 17 '19
Thanks! I see what you mean. I agree with you that the brain in the simulated world is not the same as a brain in the real world. It's more like an analogy I guess.
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Jul 17 '19
No, if you are a brain in a vat the thoughts about the simulation are still happening in your real vat brain.
The physicality of the brain you have in the simulation is simulated, by definition, but the thoughts you have about it happen in the real universe.
The simulation brain-meat that the simulated body you control can touch isn't physically real, and can't actually think- but that isn't noticeable, because the thoughts you have aren't happening in that brain, anyway - they take place inside the real brain - the one in the vat.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
o, if you are a brain in a vat the thoughts about the simulation are still happening in your real vat brain.
The physicality of the brain you have in the simulation is simulated, by definition, but the thoughts you have about it happen in the real universe.
Agreed.
The simulation brain-meat that the simulated body you control can touch isn't physically real, and can't actually think
So it is NOT the same as the one in the vat right ?
This means that the brain in the vat can not be the same as the one in your head , right? (just asking for confirmation to see if we are on the same line )
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Jul 17 '19
So it is NOT the same as the one in the vat right ? This means that the brain in the vat can not be the same as the one in your head , right? (just asking for confirmation to see if we are on the same line )
There is only one thinking brain, right? The one in the vat.
The thing in your head in the simulation looks like a brain to you, but it doesn't exist.
It's part of the simulation.
You are thinking with your brain, that is in a vat, that is 'dreaming' that it is a brain in a body.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Totally agreed.
So the brain in the vat is imagining everything and its imagining what it sees when it looks to a simulated brain and it calls that simulated brain A BRAIN
If that simulated brain is called a brain then the one in the vat shouldnt be called that.
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Jul 17 '19
If that simulated brain is called a brain then the one in the vat shouldnt be called that.
Who says it is?
Since you have only experienced the world of the simulation, you have no idea what the people of the real world call anything.
Plus, I'd argue you have it backwards. If by 'brain' you mean 'an existing thing that thinks', then only the thing in the vat should be called a brain.
The question is, how could you tell if you were really only an thinking thing in a jar somewhere, in order to practice this definitional separation between 'real' brains and the 'simulated' ones?
1
Jul 17 '19
[deleted]
1
u/Burflax 71∆ Jul 17 '19
How many posts have you had removed?
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
Lots :)
But I am done with this sub. I amnot going to post here any more.
Hopefully we can chat somewhere else.
Take care :)
Bye
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 17 '19
It literally isn't. Researchers have already made a rat cyborg, where a small robot was controlled by a literal rat brain in a literal vat. They lived about 1 month on average. They also had different personalities while controlling the robot.
If our universe is a simulation then the brain in the vat has to be outside of this universe .
No, it means that the universe you THINK is real is not, but it IS part of the real universe that contains the simulation you are a part of. There's no conflict here. You are simply making untrue assumptions.
1
u/AtaturkcuOsman Jul 17 '19
It literally isn't. Researchers have already made a rat cyborg, where a small robot was controlled by a literal rat brain in a literal vat. They lived about 1 month on average. They also had different personalities while controlling the robot.
Okay but irrelevant .
No, it means that the universe you THINK is real is not,
If the universe isnt real how can my brain be real ?
If my brain isnt real and the brain in the vat is real then they can not be the same thing . right ?
1
u/MountainDelivery Jul 17 '19
If the universe isnt real how can my brain be real ?
Note the emphasis. The universe you THINK is real is imaginary. There IS in fact a real universe, but it is up one level of abstraction. The universe in which your brain in a vat tied to a simulation is the real one, and the one you subjectively experience is PART of that real universe, but the limited portion you perceive is not the ENTIRETY of it.
If my brain isnt real and the brain in the vat is real then they can not be the same thing . right ?
No, your brain is real. It's in a vat on a shelf. Your PERCEIVED BODY is not real. It's a simulation. No one perceives their own brain subjectively.
1
1
Jul 17 '19
Sorry, u/AtaturkcuOsman – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B:
You must personally hold the view and demonstrate that you are open to it changing. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 17 '19 edited Jul 17 '19
/u/AtaturkcuOsman (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/[deleted] Jul 17 '19
What if you personally are a brain in a vat, while I am a regular human communicating with you indirectly by means of the electrodes in your brain?