Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
This is continuation of the previous debate which happened in the thread "No objective reality" but which was off-topic there, hence I am starting its own thread to focus on the topic of why consciousness is not produced the brain(no objective reality does not entail anything about consciousness directly) I am responding to a part of a post made by the forum member Doorsofperception rebutting my arguments that consciousness is not produced by the brain
The points you are making seem to be
1) The brain in the vat shows us that we cannot be sure that we are not a brain in a vat
2) We have little control over our brains
3) The brain in the vat shows us consciousness is produced by the brain
1. There are different ways to interpret the thought experiment and different conclusions can be derived from it. I am saying this so we do not get into arguments over what the intended meaning was vs the derived meaning and focus on the actual logical points of one of the derived meaning:
Here is one of the explanations for the brain in the vat thought experiment:
I am arguing a similar case as the one cited above. If you are a brain a vat, it is impossible to know that you are a brain in a vat and nor is it possible to know anything that you know to be certain, because everything you know is caused by the brain in the vat, thus if you say your brain is in the skull, then it is not necessarily true, because your brain in the skull is another one of your objects of knowledge and caused like every other object of your knowledge. Thus the brain in the skull you perceive is equally as caused by the brain in the vat, as every other experience you have. Hence, if you were a brain in a vat, the knowledge of the brain in the skull would be false, your actual brain is elsewhere(similar to holographic theory of the brain)
The brain in the vat thought experiment shouldn't be really read literally, because the literal example of a brain in a vat is irrelevant to what the thought experiment is arguing. It is actually a modern day version of Descarte's evil demon thought experiment. In Descartes version there is an evil demon that that is causing everyone of your experiences(cf supercomputer in brain in vat) Thus the thought experiment is arguing that if all your experiences were being caused, it would be impossible for you to know the cause, because you are the effect of the cause.
The same arguments appears in the Indian philosophical tradition. The Samkhayakarika 9 says "Only effects are knowable, not causes" Whatever is knowable and can become knowledge is an effect only, not the cause. The brain is something which can become knowable(it can be dissected) therefore it cannot be the cause of your experience.
Now one of your counters to this argument is that the brain knows itself through the senses(sense organs and motor organs) but this is irrelevant, because the in the brain in the vat the supercomputer is providing the electric signals to the brain and thus acting as a substitute for our senses. The actual experience is taking place inside the the brain in the vat, and thus it is impossible here for the experiencing subject to actually see the brain in the vat. They can see the brain in the skull, but not the brain in the vat.
I used a similar thought experiment of my own that if you were a controller of a computer game character. As every experience/action of the computer game character is controlled by you, it would be impossible for the computer game character to see you.
So all three versions; brain in the vat; evil demon and computer character being controlled show us that our reality could be virtual and as such it would be impossible to know anything about the actual reality in itself, as all our knowledge is virtual. Hence even our belief that our experience is caused by the brain in the skull is not necessarily true.
The Indian version is much more stronger because it argues more directly in terms of causality. It can be formally presented with this syllogism:
1. Only effects can be known, not causes
2. The brain is known
3. Therefore, the brain is not the cause
2) This point really extends from the arguments in #1 You argue that we have "little control" over our brains, which means we have some control, however as per the thought experiment we should have NO CONTROL. In the thought experiment your every experience is controlled by the supercomputer; in Descartes version the evil demon and in my version the computer controller. Therefore, you cannot have any kind of choice of your own, everything is determined by the cause. You have as much causal efficacy as a character in a movie - i.e., no causal efficacy.
The very fact that you do have some control over your brain eliminates it as the cause of your experience. Some of those controls are that you have the power to destroy the brain by taking a hammer to your head and squishing it(or you could open up your head and splice it) In the brain in the vat it is impossible for the virtual subjects to destroy the supercomputer/evil demon/computer controller, because they have no causal efficacy. That would be like your gaming character coming out of the computer game and killing you.
Again in the Indian tradition a stronger and direct argument is made. The effect cannot destroy its own cause. The effect pot for example cannot destroy the cause clay out of which it is made. It can be formally argued with the following syllogism
1. The effect cannot destroy the cause
2. You can destroy the brain
3. Therefore the brain cannot be the cause of you
Therefore, because you have the power to destroy the cause brain, you cannot be caused by the brain.
3) In fact the arguments above show us the exact opposite: It is illogical that the brain can be cause of our conscious experience. For the following reasons summarized from the previous points:
1) If the brain was the cause of our conscious experience, then it would not be able to see/know/manipulate the brain. The brain is another object of our experience, it therefore cannot be the cause of our experience.
2) If the brain was the cause of conscious experience, then we would not be able to destroy the brain. The brain can be dissected and destroyed, it therefore cannot be the cause of our conscious experience.
Finally, I will add another argument:
3) If any kind of all-controlling-entity was the cause of conscious experience, the supercomputer in the brain in the vat, evil demon in Descartes evil demon or computer controller in my computer game version or even the brain in the skull itself, there could not arise any kind of conscious experience in the first place, because there is no experiencer. But this is patently false, we have conscious experience and therefore conscious experience cannot be caused by anything. It must necessarily be uncaused and hence outside of time and space(because time and space are inextricably linked with causality). Therefore, the consciousness must be infinite, eternal and permanent.
Actually, this is not the point of the brain in the vat at all. The BitV simply shows that we cannot be sure we are not a brain in a vat, we cannot be sure this reality is the true reality. However, the reality where our brain is in a vat may well be the true, objective reality. When we see a brain, it is not simply being aware of itself, we are seeing our brain and make the connection. The brain is not just like "oh hey, I exist".
Of course, I do not know what you mean by "manipulate it". We really have little control over our brains in this "reality". You make a horrible mistake though. If we are a brain in a vat, we cannot know about that brain, but we can still know about the brain in our head. You need to decide if this is reality or if we are a brain in a vat, cannot have it both ways. If we are a brain in a vat, consciousness obviously is from the brain because we are nothing more than a brain and are aware. If we are not a brain in a vat, it can go either way.
The points you are making seem to be
1) The brain in the vat shows us that we cannot be sure that we are not a brain in a vat
2) We have little control over our brains
3) The brain in the vat shows us consciousness is produced by the brain
1. There are different ways to interpret the thought experiment and different conclusions can be derived from it. I am saying this so we do not get into arguments over what the intended meaning was vs the derived meaning and focus on the actual logical points of one of the derived meaning:
Here is one of the explanations for the brain in the vat thought experiment:
Wiki: The simplest use of brain-in-a-vat scenarios is as an argument for philosophical skepticism and solipsism. A simple version of this runs as follows: 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. Yet in the first case most of the person's beliefs may be true (if he believes, say, that he is walking down the street, or eating ice-cream); in the latter case they are false. Since the argument says one cannot know whether he or she is a brain in a vat, then he or she cannot know whether most of his or her 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.
I am arguing a similar case as the one cited above. If you are a brain a vat, it is impossible to know that you are a brain in a vat and nor is it possible to know anything that you know to be certain, because everything you know is caused by the brain in the vat, thus if you say your brain is in the skull, then it is not necessarily true, because your brain in the skull is another one of your objects of knowledge and caused like every other object of your knowledge. Thus the brain in the skull you perceive is equally as caused by the brain in the vat, as every other experience you have. Hence, if you were a brain in a vat, the knowledge of the brain in the skull would be false, your actual brain is elsewhere(similar to holographic theory of the brain)
The brain in the vat thought experiment shouldn't be really read literally, because the literal example of a brain in a vat is irrelevant to what the thought experiment is arguing. It is actually a modern day version of Descarte's evil demon thought experiment. In Descartes version there is an evil demon that that is causing everyone of your experiences(cf supercomputer in brain in vat) Thus the thought experiment is arguing that if all your experiences were being caused, it would be impossible for you to know the cause, because you are the effect of the cause.
The same arguments appears in the Indian philosophical tradition. The Samkhayakarika 9 says "Only effects are knowable, not causes" Whatever is knowable and can become knowledge is an effect only, not the cause. The brain is something which can become knowable(it can be dissected) therefore it cannot be the cause of your experience.
Now one of your counters to this argument is that the brain knows itself through the senses(sense organs and motor organs) but this is irrelevant, because the in the brain in the vat the supercomputer is providing the electric signals to the brain and thus acting as a substitute for our senses. The actual experience is taking place inside the the brain in the vat, and thus it is impossible here for the experiencing subject to actually see the brain in the vat. They can see the brain in the skull, but not the brain in the vat.
I used a similar thought experiment of my own that if you were a controller of a computer game character. As every experience/action of the computer game character is controlled by you, it would be impossible for the computer game character to see you.
So all three versions; brain in the vat; evil demon and computer character being controlled show us that our reality could be virtual and as such it would be impossible to know anything about the actual reality in itself, as all our knowledge is virtual. Hence even our belief that our experience is caused by the brain in the skull is not necessarily true.
The Indian version is much more stronger because it argues more directly in terms of causality. It can be formally presented with this syllogism:
1. Only effects can be known, not causes
2. The brain is known
3. Therefore, the brain is not the cause
2) This point really extends from the arguments in #1 You argue that we have "little control" over our brains, which means we have some control, however as per the thought experiment we should have NO CONTROL. In the thought experiment your every experience is controlled by the supercomputer; in Descartes version the evil demon and in my version the computer controller. Therefore, you cannot have any kind of choice of your own, everything is determined by the cause. You have as much causal efficacy as a character in a movie - i.e., no causal efficacy.
The very fact that you do have some control over your brain eliminates it as the cause of your experience. Some of those controls are that you have the power to destroy the brain by taking a hammer to your head and squishing it(or you could open up your head and splice it) In the brain in the vat it is impossible for the virtual subjects to destroy the supercomputer/evil demon/computer controller, because they have no causal efficacy. That would be like your gaming character coming out of the computer game and killing you.
Again in the Indian tradition a stronger and direct argument is made. The effect cannot destroy its own cause. The effect pot for example cannot destroy the cause clay out of which it is made. It can be formally argued with the following syllogism
1. The effect cannot destroy the cause
2. You can destroy the brain
3. Therefore the brain cannot be the cause of you
Therefore, because you have the power to destroy the cause brain, you cannot be caused by the brain.
3) In fact the arguments above show us the exact opposite: It is illogical that the brain can be cause of our conscious experience. For the following reasons summarized from the previous points:
1) If the brain was the cause of our conscious experience, then it would not be able to see/know/manipulate the brain. The brain is another object of our experience, it therefore cannot be the cause of our experience.
2) If the brain was the cause of conscious experience, then we would not be able to destroy the brain. The brain can be dissected and destroyed, it therefore cannot be the cause of our conscious experience.
Finally, I will add another argument:
3) If any kind of all-controlling-entity was the cause of conscious experience, the supercomputer in the brain in the vat, evil demon in Descartes evil demon or computer controller in my computer game version or even the brain in the skull itself, there could not arise any kind of conscious experience in the first place, because there is no experiencer. But this is patently false, we have conscious experience and therefore conscious experience cannot be caused by anything. It must necessarily be uncaused and hence outside of time and space(because time and space are inextricably linked with causality). Therefore, the consciousness must be infinite, eternal and permanent.
Last edited: