> From: Alexandre <alexandr-andr...@hotmail.com> > Subject: [epistemology 9137] If you are a brain in a vat... > To: "Epistemology" <epistemology@googlegroups.com> > Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 7:23 PM > IF YOU ARE A BRAIN IN A VAT...
> Just for fun:
> In this text I will try to show that, if you are a brain > in a vat > (BIV): > 1.The fact that you are a BIV is absolutely irrelevant for* > you; > 2.In your BIV reality (BIVR), there are statements that are > true; > 3.Due to** (1) and (2), knowledge is possible, regarding at > least some > relevant matters, even if you are a BIV.
> 1 – Irrelevance argument: > If you are a BIV, your BIVR has some properties: > 1.1 – It is absolutely impossible for you to know whether > or not you > are a BIV; > 1.2 – It is absolutely impossible for you to change your > condition or > escape your BIVR. > 1.3 – Even though it is illusory, your BIVR is extremely > complex and > internally coherent.
> First of all, let's analyze the implications of > statements (1.1) and > (1.2): If your condition is unknowable and ineluctable, why > should you > even wonder if you are a BIV? It makes no difference. No > questions > will be answered, no conditions will be changed. Do not > waste your > BIVR time!. Enjoy it, instead! Explore your amazingly > complex BIVR. > Make lots of BIVR friends, listen to good BIVR music, > travel to as > many BIVR countries as you can, eat BIVR food, have BIVR > children, > read BIVR books, learn BIVR science... In short, live your > BIVR life! > It is the only one you will ever know!
> 2 – In your BIVR, there are statements that are true: > Truth is not independent of context. Consider the > statement: “Most > people are Chinese”. If we are talking about the whole > world > population, that is not true. But if we are talking about > people who > live in China, it is true. Similarly, in the context of > your BIVR, > there are statements that are true. For example: “the > BIVR Earth > orbits a BIVR Sun”; “a BIVR triangle has three BIVR > sides”.
> 3 – Knowledge is possible regarding at least some > relevant matters: > From (1) and (2): regarding at least some relevant > matters, knowledge > is possible.
> REMARKS: > (*) English is not my mother language. I may have written > something I > did not intended to. For example: I was not very sure if I > should > write “ irrelevant for you” or “ irrelevant to > you”. However, I think > that the context allows the reader to understand what I > intended to > say. > (**) I think that it may be pretty easy to refute the > arguments above. > I am not really sure that premises (1) and (2) really allow > us to > conclude (3). However, perhaps this task can be the > starting point of > an interesting debate.
================== G: Impossible to refute. Only logically determinate statements may be negated, ie. refuted. Your 1 and 2 are indeterminate, ie. meaningless. From meaningless premises anything may be concluded, even your 3. The conclusion will of course be meaningless as well.
As to interesting debates, meaningless ones are the most interesting, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. This list swarms with them. Georges. ==================
The aim of the brain in a vat argument is not to say that it is true, but to fight against dogmatism: every time we think something is surely true, we must remember that everything could be false if we are a brain in a vat. Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation of science.
> OK, that is a very good argument. Thank you for your comments. > I would like to make a remark, however. If everything we know (that > includes all scientific knowledge, culture and history, for example) > is the product of some kind of simulation, or virtual reality, there > is one fact that cannot be ignored. This virtual reality is so > amazingly complex and internally coherent, that only "someone" with > the powers of a god would be able to create and keep it working. > Personally, I am not a believer. Thus, I think that "brain in a vat" > arguments as pure fantasy.The only reason why I think it is worth > debating it, is because the kind of nihilism radical skepticism > produces is a menace to humankind. > Best regards,
"...Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation
of science." - Luis
Luis, I am rather naive here. I do not understand the relationship you
appear to be suggesting between scepticism and knowledge. I do
understand how scepticism brought us out of the dark ages and helped
make current day science possible.
Thanks.
<luis.manuel.ledo.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The aim of the brain in a vat argument is not to say that it is true,
> but to fight against dogmatism: every time we think something is surely
> true, we must remember that everything could be false if we are a brain in a
> vat. Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation of
> science.
> > OK, that is a very good argument. Thank you for your comments.
> > I would like to make a remark, however. If everything we know (that
> > includes all scientific knowledge, culture and history, for example)
> > is the product of some kind of simulation, or virtual reality, there
> > is one fact that cannot be ignored. This virtual reality is so
> > amazingly complex and internally coherent, that only "someone" with
> > the powers of a god would be able to create and keep it working.
> > Personally, I am not a believer. Thus, I think that "brain in a vat"
> > arguments as pure fantasy.The only reason why I think it is worth
> > debating it, is because the kind of nihilism radical skepticism
> > produces is a menace to humankind.
> > Best regards,
I only want to say that knowledge is never sure, so scepticism is the right way to look to knowledge. Scientific theories are never dogmatic, but always hypothetical, so scepticism is in their kernel.
> "...Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation > of science." - Luis
> Luis, I am rather naive here. I do not understand the relationship you > appear to be suggesting between scepticism and knowledge. I do > understand how scepticism brought us out of the dark ages and helped > make current day science possible. > Thanks.
" I only want to say that knowledge is never sure, so scepticism is
the
right way to look to knowledge. Scientific theories are never
dogmatic, but
always hypothetical, so scepticism is in their kernel." - Luis
Thanks Luis. I agree with what you say about the kernel of the
hypothetical being scepticism.
In most situations, I have been using the term 'knowledge' in an
apparently different sense than you do. For me, this is the only
'sure' thing.
<luis.manuel.ledo.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I only want to say that knowledge is never sure, so scepticism is the
> right way to look to knowledge. Scientific theories are never dogmatic, but
> always hypothetical, so scepticism is in their kernel.
> > "...Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation
> > of science." - Luis
> > Luis, I am rather naive here. I do not understand the relationship you
> > appear to be suggesting between scepticism and knowledge. I do
> > understand how scepticism brought us out of the dark ages and helped
> > make current day science possible.
> > Thanks.- Hide quoted text -
> OK, that is a very good argument. Thank you for your > comments. > I would like to make a remark, however. If everything we > know (that > includes all scientific knowledge, culture and history, for > example) > is the product of some kind of simulation, or virtual > reality, there > is one fact that cannot be ignored. This virtual reality is > so > amazingly complex and internally coherent, that only > "someone" with > the powers of a god would be able to create and keep it > working. > Personally, I am not a believer. Thus, I think that > "brain in a vat" > arguments as pure fantasy.The only reason why I think it is > worth > debating it, is because the kind of nihilism radical > skepticism > produces is a menace to humankind. > Best regards,
> Alexandre
================= G: Your assertions seem to boil down to knowledge being fuzzy, which indeed it is. This admitted,science and other rigorous pursuits endeavor to sharpen it and to increase its certainty. (Just to keep the record straight, nothing is more rigorous than a proper jazz arrangement, or a structure of a good short story.) Some people, including myself, find such pursuits, or study thereof, their favorite pastime. And speaking about "some kind of simulation" you put your finger on IMO the deepest of them, viz. " STRUCTURE OF MIND" and "MIND AND BRAIN" interface, which I endeavored to postulate and describe respectively in http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_DIALECTIC/B_FOUNDATIONS/BA_M... and http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/RELATIVISTIC_PHENOMENOLOGY/c_mind_and_bra... Words are much vaguer than the knowledge itself, so, especially tackling the fundamentals, we better define our terms as sharply as possible. Even then they will only vaguely hint to cognitive contents, fuzzy in turn.
I propose to replace "Brain" with "Mind" for reasons, justified in above links. Appendix presents a short resume of Mind's cognitive structures also justified in these links.
In their light "simulation" appears inappropriate. Our apparent (not virtual) reality is a construct of Mind, a morphogenetic map of some inaccessible, incognizable territory, the Transcendency. In this perspective the complexity and internal coherence of our "reality" is no more amazingly god-like, but seems to show that evolution provided us with coherently structured and functioning Mind.
In terms of Functions: A.Sensating 2D Sensations like retina imprints. B.Perceivance. Morphogenetic creation of 3D Phenomena from 2D Sensations. C.Reflection. CA.Modeling or mapping arbitrary Phenomena of PD into abstract symbolic structures (e.g. language, mathematics) in order to coordinate them. CB.Understanding, or regressing symbolic Structures to Phenomena of Imagery, which embody their "Meaning".
It's the most common epistemological error to confuse abstract Models with apparent "reality of Cosmos", i.e. with Imagery, let alone with Transcendency, saying for instance that the Space of the "real Cosmos" is a 4D hyperbolic LighttimeSpace immerged in a 10D Space. All these terms are pertinent exclusively to the abstract Model called the General Relativity and have no bearing on the Phenomena of PD else than helping to coordinate them. Models coordinate abstract representations of Phenomena into deductively consistent an inductively falsifiable symbolic structures. That's all. And not so little, if you ask my opinion.
Science in practice is highly dogmatic. It can take a momumental
collection of new evidence to throw down old paradigms.
Modern evolutionary theory, in the guise of neo-darwimism and
evolutionary psychology are taking "survival strategies" to ridiculous
limits and in doing so are so full of teleological crap as to allow
the "intelligent design" brigade in by the back door.
In feeling they need to account for every trait and behaviour by
undergoing a notional "survival-of the- fittest "calculation" they are
demonstrating an obsession that needs not be applied at all.
Not every trait or behaviour has to undergo such scrutiny, as
selection does not work on traits, neither does it work on genes, it
works on individuals, who live and die and reproduce; in cooperative
species, selection works groups within species; and situations of
domestication selection works on the arbitrary choice of the human
eye. I include humans in the catregory of a domestic species and cite
the unweildy human breast as evidence of male reproductive domestic
selection.
Thus a trait or gene which does not actually cause the failure of the
reproductive success of the individual , eventhough it might be
harmful will continue to thrive so long as the indivdual with that
trait or gene reproduces. It is not therefore necessary to make
account of every trait or gene in terms of selection or reproductive
success. In any event such variation may well equip the individual
for its future.
<luis.manuel.ledo.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The aim of the brain in a vat argument is not to say that it is true,
> but to fight against dogmatism: every time we think something is surely
> true, we must remember that everything could be false if we are a brain in a
> vat. Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation of
> science.
> > OK, that is a very good argument. Thank you for your comments.
> > I would like to make a remark, however. If everything we know (that
> > includes all scientific knowledge, culture and history, for example)
> > is the product of some kind of simulation, or virtual reality, there
> > is one fact that cannot be ignored. This virtual reality is so
> > amazingly complex and internally coherent, that only "someone" with
> > the powers of a god would be able to create and keep it working.
> > Personally, I am not a believer. Thus, I think that "brain in a vat"
> > arguments as pure fantasy.The only reason why I think it is worth
> > debating it, is because the kind of nihilism radical skepticism
> > produces is a menace to humankind.
> > Best regards,
On Aug 4, 2:24 am, Alexandre <alexandr-andr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Science in practice is highly dogmatic".
> I would say that "some scientists can be highly dogmatic", instead.
> Scientific theories are tested and questioned all the time. Your
> statement cannot be applied to science as a whole. Not even to
> evolutionary biology as a whole.
> Besides, the fact that natural selection is not the only important
> factor in evolution is widely known and accepted by the scientific
> comunity. Sexual seletion, for instance, is another relevant factor.
> On Aug 2, 5:28 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Science in practice is highly dogmatic. It can take a momumental
> > collection of new evidence to throw down old paradigms.
> > Modern evolutionary theory, in the guise of neo-darwimism and
> > evolutionary psychology are taking "survival strategies" to ridiculous
> > limits and in doing so are so full of teleological crap as to allow
> > the "intelligent design" brigade in by the back door.
> > In feeling they need to account for every trait and behaviour by
> > undergoing a notional "survival-of the- fittest "calculation" they are
> > demonstrating an obsession that needs not be applied at all.
> > Not every trait or behaviour has to undergo such scrutiny, as
> > selection does not work on traits, neither does it work on genes, it
> > works on individuals, who live and die and reproduce; in cooperative
> > species, selection works groups within species; and situations of
> > domestication selection works on the arbitrary choice of the human
> > eye. I include humans in the catregory of a domestic species and cite
> > the unweildy human breast as evidence of male reproductive domestic
> > selection.
> > Thus a trait or gene which does not actually cause the failure of the
> > reproductive success of the individual , eventhough it might be
> > harmful will continue to thrive so long as the indivdual with that
> > trait or gene reproduces. It is not therefore necessary to make
> > account of every trait or gene in terms of selection or reproductive
> > success. In any event such variation may well equip the individual
> > for its future.
> > On Jul 31, 8:26 am, "Luis Manuel Ledo-Regal"
> > <luis.manuel.ledo.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The aim of the brain in a vat argument is not to say that it is true,
> > > but to fight against dogmatism: every time we think something is surely
> > > true, we must remember that everything could be false if we are a brain in a
> > > vat. Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation of
> > > science.
> > > > OK, that is a very good argument. Thank you for your comments.
> > > > I would like to make a remark, however. If everything we know (that
> > > > includes all scientific knowledge, culture and history, for example)
> > > > is the product of some kind of simulation, or virtual reality, there
> > > > is one fact that cannot be ignored. This virtual reality is so
> > > > amazingly complex and internally coherent, that only "someone" with
> > > > the powers of a god would be able to create and keep it working.
> > > > Personally, I am not a believer. Thus, I think that "brain in a vat"
> > > > arguments as pure fantasy.The only reason why I think it is worth
> > > > debating it, is because the kind of nihilism radical skepticism
> > > > produces is a menace to humankind.
> > > > Best regards,
Some intelligent design types are welcome to the odd beer. However,
the creationists should meet in dark pits at night at the edge of
mudslides. This is a summary of "life" taking account of science.
Our increased understanding of the physical-chemical basis of living
systems has increased enormously over the past century and it is
possible to give a plausible definition of life in these terms.
“Living organisms are autopoietic systems: self-constructing, self-
maintaining, energy-transducing autocatalytic entities” in which
information needed to construct the next generation of organisms is
stabilized in nucleic acids that replicate within the context of whole
cells and work with other developmental resources during the life-
cycles of organisms, but they are also “systems capable of evolving by
variation and natural selection: self-reproducing entities, whose
forms and functions are adapted to their environment and reflect the
composition and history of an ecosystem”. Such a perspective
represents a fulfillment of the basic dual insights of Schrödinger
near mid-century. Much remains to be elucidated about the
relationships among the complex molecular systems of living entities,
how they are constrained by the system as a whole as well as by
physical laws. Indeed, it is still an open question for some as to
whether we have yet a sufficiently rich understanding of the laws of
nature or whether we need to seek deep laws that lead to order and
organization. At the start of the new century there is a sense of the
importance of putting Schrödinger's program into a ‘systems’ context.
Writing on this is legion. Significant challenges remain, such as
fully integrating our new view of organisms and their action with
evolutionary theory, and to understand plausible routes for the
emergence of life. The fulfillment of such a program will give us a
good sense of what life is on earth. Work in artificial-Life and
empirical work seeking evidence of extra-terrestrial life may help the
formulation of a more universal concept of life.
This account is actually riddled with assumptions, but at least not
those made up before we had much history and scientific knowledge.
Even this summary could be one made up in the shadow of a 2-time, 4-
spatial dimensional 'reality somewhere else' and we would expect it to
change in the light of new knowledge.
On 4 Aug, 12:52, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:24 am, Alexandre <alexandr-andr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Science in practice is highly dogmatic".
> > I would say that "some scientists can be highly dogmatic", instead.
> > Scientific theories are tested and questioned all the time. Your
> > statement cannot be applied to science as a whole. Not even to
> > evolutionary biology as a whole.
> > Besides, the fact that natural selection is not the only important
> > factor in evolution is widely known and accepted by the scientific
> > comunity. Sexual seletion, for instance, is another relevant factor.
> Indeed - but I already said that.
> > Regards,
> > Alexandre
> > On Aug 2, 5:28 pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Science in practice is highly dogmatic. It can take a momumental
> > > collection of new evidence to throw down old paradigms.
> > > Modern evolutionary theory, in the guise of neo-darwimism and
> > > evolutionary psychology are taking "survival strategies" to ridiculous
> > > limits and in doing so are so full of teleological crap as to allow
> > > the "intelligent design" brigade in by the back door.
> > > In feeling they need to account for every trait and behaviour by
> > > undergoing a notional "survival-of the- fittest "calculation" they are
> > > demonstrating an obsession that needs not be applied at all.
> > > Not every trait or behaviour has to undergo such scrutiny, as
> > > selection does not work on traits, neither does it work on genes, it
> > > works on individuals, who live and die and reproduce; in cooperative
> > > species, selection works groups within species; and situations of
> > > domestication selection works on the arbitrary choice of the human
> > > eye. I include humans in the catregory of a domestic species and cite
> > > the unweildy human breast as evidence of male reproductive domestic
> > > selection.
> > > Thus a trait or gene which does not actually cause the failure of the
> > > reproductive success of the individual , eventhough it might be
> > > harmful will continue to thrive so long as the indivdual with that
> > > trait or gene reproduces. It is not therefore necessary to make
> > > account of every trait or gene in terms of selection or reproductive
> > > success. In any event such variation may well equip the individual
> > > for its future.
> > > On Jul 31, 8:26 am, "Luis Manuel Ledo-Regal"
> > > <luis.manuel.ledo.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > The aim of the brain in a vat argument is not to say that it is true,
> > > > but to fight against dogmatism: every time we think something is surely
> > > > true, we must remember that everything could be false if we are a brain in a
> > > > vat. Scepticism is the right answer to knowledge and is the foundation of
> > > > science.
> > > > > OK, that is a very good argument. Thank you for your comments.
> > > > > I would like to make a remark, however. If everything we know (that
> > > > > includes all scientific knowledge, culture and history, for example)
> > > > > is the product of some kind of simulation, or virtual reality, there
> > > > > is one fact that cannot be ignored. This virtual reality is so
> > > > > amazingly complex and internally coherent, that only "someone" with
> > > > > the powers of a god would be able to create and keep it working.
> > > > > Personally, I am not a believer. Thus, I think that "brain in a vat"
> > > > > arguments as pure fantasy.The only reason why I think it is worth
> > > > > debating it, is because the kind of nihilism radical skepticism
> > > > > produces is a menace to humankind.
> > > > > Best regards,
