So I was reading the "Brain in a vat" idea on wikipedia today. I like learning new stuff.
It's basically a question of how we know what reality is, a question that The Matrix, among other films, have dealt with. How do we know, for instance, that we are not all brains in vats hooked up to supercomputers which stimulate the nerves in our brains in order to give us the impression that we are really living our life?
One interesting argument is that if a brain were to state that it is a brain in a vat, it must always be a falsehood. The first option is obvious: If a brain is not a brain in a vat, then the statement is false. Even if it were, how could it possibly "know" that enough to be sure that the state of being a brain which is in a vat is true? In order for it to verify that it is indeed a brain and it is indeed located in a vat, it would have to know what a brain and what a vat are, and if all that it can perceive (i.e. all that is real) is the world around it which is alledgedly only signals to the "brain", then how can it "know" what a REAL brain or REAL vat are? In other words, because there is no way to verify what a real brain/vat is, there is no way to determine whether it REALLY is a brain and/or REALLY in a vat. What a mindfuck.
But this brings about a more interesting question about the nature of perception and reality. If we presume that the above premise makes sense, then there are a lot of things we must now question in regards to reality. If something cannot be shown as true and/or real if we have no way to verify it, then what about, for instance, other people's minds? Certainly, since I experience my own personal state, I don't need to verify it to myself, but what of the states of others? As a simple example, how can I call someone "sad" if I have no way of tangibly verifying their sadness?
Somehow I think this could turn into a neat concept for a short story, but my brain is too muddled now from other troubling thoughts, lack of sleep and trying to understand this thing to come up with it right now.
It's basically a question of how we know what reality is, a question that The Matrix, among other films, have dealt with. How do we know, for instance, that we are not all brains in vats hooked up to supercomputers which stimulate the nerves in our brains in order to give us the impression that we are really living our life?
One interesting argument is that if a brain were to state that it is a brain in a vat, it must always be a falsehood. The first option is obvious: If a brain is not a brain in a vat, then the statement is false. Even if it were, how could it possibly "know" that enough to be sure that the state of being a brain which is in a vat is true? In order for it to verify that it is indeed a brain and it is indeed located in a vat, it would have to know what a brain and what a vat are, and if all that it can perceive (i.e. all that is real) is the world around it which is alledgedly only signals to the "brain", then how can it "know" what a REAL brain or REAL vat are? In other words, because there is no way to verify what a real brain/vat is, there is no way to determine whether it REALLY is a brain and/or REALLY in a vat. What a mindfuck.
But this brings about a more interesting question about the nature of perception and reality. If we presume that the above premise makes sense, then there are a lot of things we must now question in regards to reality. If something cannot be shown as true and/or real if we have no way to verify it, then what about, for instance, other people's minds? Certainly, since I experience my own personal state, I don't need to verify it to myself, but what of the states of others? As a simple example, how can I call someone "sad" if I have no way of tangibly verifying their sadness?
Somehow I think this could turn into a neat concept for a short story, but my brain is too muddled now from other troubling thoughts, lack of sleep and trying to understand this thing to come up with it right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment