Can We Prove Anything?

[Ken-1122]

I never said you can nor should assume you ARE a brain in a vat.
I said you cannot be certain that you are NOT.
See the difference?

But I am certain. Just as I am certain my car is not going to take off like a Jet and start flying when I drive it, just as I am certain my Dog is not going to magically turn into a Dinosaur and start barking like Dino from the Flintstones, Just as I am certain when I sleep at night, I will not wake up on the moon and suffocate from lack of oxygen, there are a million things I am certain of and knowing my experiences are real, is just one of them. Now perhaps my evidence isn't enough to persuade everybody, maybe not even yourself, but for me it does suffice.

Ken

 

[durangodawood]

But I am certain. Just as I am certain my car is not going to take off like a Jet and start flying when I drive it, just as I am certain my Dog is not going to magically turn into a Dinosaur and start barking like Dino from the Flintstones, Just as I am certain when I sleep at night, I will not wake up on the moon and suffocate from lack of oxygen, there are a million things I am certain of and knowing my experiences are real, is just one of them. Now perhaps my evidence isn't enough to persuade everybody, maybe not even yourself, but for me it does suffice.

Ken

What I want to know is HOW you know for 100% certain that you arent a brain-in-a-vat, experiencing a completely convincing 'virtual' experience?

 

[quatona]

What I want to know is HOW you know for 100% certain that you arent a brain-in-a-vat, experiencing a completely convincing 'virtual' experience?

...and I would like to know why you find this question so important. Because as far as I can tell, nothing of significance would change if I were a brain in a vat, and not even if I knew I am a brain in a vat.
E.g. I would still have a conversation with you even if I knew you were but a part of this virtual reality that is so real to me.

 

[durangodawood]

...and I would like to know why you find this question so important. Because as far as I can tell, nothing of significance would change if I were a brain in a vat, and not even if I knew I am a brain in a vat.

Sure, to my knowledge, we cant know, so we just continue as if this is all real.

But here we have someone who DOES know! Dont you want to find out HOW he knows this? That to me is interesting. To each his own, I guess.

As for your hypothetical, if I knew this was virtual... that couldnt help but change me, as I'd know there is another reality, beyond ours, in which my brain is in a vat. Wouldnt that make you curious about a number of things, or attempt to make contact, or who knows what???

 

[quatona]

Sure, to my knowledge, we cant know, so we just continue as if this is all real.

But here we have someone who DOES know! Dont you want to find out HOW he knows this? That to me is interesting. To each his own, I guess.

No. I don´t think he knows it (in the way you use "knowing").
I guess he just can´t see any workable alternative, and I guess he appreciates the fact that this is a shared reality - just like everybody else.

As for your hypothetical, if I knew this was virtual... that couldnt help but change me, as I'd know there is another reality,beyond ours, in which my brain is in a vat.

Hang on...how would you know this?
You could be just a brain in vat producing your reality - with no beyond-reality at all.

Wouldnt that make you curious about a number of things, or attempt to make contact, or who knows what???

No. Contact with whom? And what exactly could I do to act upon curiosity, anyway?

 

[durangodawood]

No. I don´t think he knows it (in the way you use "knowing").
I guess he just can´t see any workable alternative, and I guess he appreciates the fact that this is a shared reality - just like everybody else.


Hang on...how would you know this?
You could be just a brain in vat producing your reality - with no beyond-reality at all.

No. Contact with whom? And what exactly could I do to act upon curiosity, anyway?

1. Of course I appreciate normal consensus reality, just like ken and you. But IF he knows its real in the way I am asking about, he can explain how.

2. I would know it because you stipulated such in the hypothetical: even if I knew I am a brain in a vat. Right there we have two 'realities'. The world of my internal experiences, and the world in which my brain exists.

3. The possibility of other beings in the realm where my brain exists. The possibility of contact with them. I dont know what would get their attention. But why not try a few things?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I will continue to prove to myself that my experiences are real.

How? Most of us assume our waking experiences are real, but you assert that you can prove it - so how can you prove your experiences are real?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...and I would like to know why you find this question so important.

This is a philosophy forum; it's the sort of question philosophers find important...

 

[quatona]

1. Of course I appreciate normal consensus reality, just like ken and you. But IF he knows its real in the way I am asking about, he can explain how.

Not to your satisfaction - because the way you demand proof or explanation lends itself to infinte regress.

2. I would know it because you stipulated such in the hypothetical: even if I knew I am a brain in a vat. Right there we have two 'realities'. The world of my internal experiences, and the world in which my brain exists.

Why would you assume there is a world around your brain (and why would you assume that this is an interesting world)?

3. The possibility of other beings in the realm where my brain exists.

Well, you couldn´t be sure of their existence any more than you can be sure of the existence of the beings that inhabitate your current reality.
And why - since you are so obsessed with proving that which takes a lot of mental gymnastics to deny - would you spend so much effort on an academic possibility (i.e. real beings living around this brain in a vat)?

The possibility of contact with them. I dont know what would get their attention. But why not try a few things?

Well, you aren´t even trusting that which appears to jump straight into your face. If applying this very skepticism and epistemological nihilism which you postulate about "this" reality to the findings of your attempts to find out about a hypothetical beyond-reality you´d still be at square one.

 

[quatona]

This is a philosophy forum; it's the sort of question philosophers find important...

..but they don´t find the question important why they find it important?

 

[Gottservant]

Anything proven is subject to a transition that is or is not law, which can only be established by faith (not necessarily as law, not only as faith ____ "for example" ____ ____).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

..but they don´t find the question important why they find it important?

Philosophical curiosity, I guess...

It's a strange business - I spent a couple of hours today with a group discussing R.M. Hare's paper 'What is Wrong with Slavery?' (he wasn't in favour, he was trying to show that utilitarianism made for a better moral philosophy than J.L. Mackie's rights-based morality). We decided he failed quite badly... but it was really just an exercise in critical thinking.

 

[quatona]

Philosophical curiosity, I guess...

Which wouldn´t amount to not much more than a tautology.

On another note, it seems to me that some philosophers don´t take their own ideas seriously. If duran would really believe he is a brain in a vat, merely imagining what appears to be the "real world" to him, and if he were that curious about a hypothetical beyond world ("the really real reality"), he wouldn´t discuss it with me (the mere product of his imagination).

Plus, the "brain in a vat" hypothesis is - epistemologically - a dead end if there ever was one. If duran eventually would have some ephiphanies about the "real beyond world" he still couldn´t be sure that this isn´t a virtual world itself. He would end up with the same problem he suffers from right now.

 

[durangodawood]

Not to your satisfaction - because the way you demand proof or explanation lends itself to infinte regress.

If his sense of "knowing" has certain limits, he can just say so. I dont demand anything.

Why would you assume there is a world around your brain (and why would you assume that this is an interesting world)?

Never said there must be a world around the brain. But its reasonable that there might be. And it might be interesting.

Well, you couldn´t be sure of their existence any more than you can be sure of the existence of the beings that inhabitate your current reality.
And why - since you are so obsessed with proving that which takes a lot of mental gymnastics to deny - would you spend so much effort on an academic possibility (i.e. real beings living around this brain in a vat)?

There you go again. Never said I'm sure of other beings in 'brain/vat world'. But there might be.

Well, you aren´t even trusting that which appears to jump straight into your face. If applying this very skepticism and epistemological nihilism which you postulate about "this" reality to the findings of your attempts to find out about a hypothetical beyond-reality you´d still be at square one.

You stipulated that I know I'm a brain-in-a-vat. So now I have 2 realities to contend with: apparent world + vat world. In a philosophical mood, I might apply "this very skepticism" to the whole package. But in the practical mood that I inhabit much more often, I'd want to know w.tee.f is going on, and who else might be involved. Wouldnt you?

 

[Ken-1122]

What I want to know is HOW you know for 100% certain that you arent a brain-in-a-vat, experiencing a completely convincing 'virtual' experience?

To know means to be 100% certain; without any shadow of doubt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know
It doesn’t mean you are right, it doesn’t mean you can prove yourself right; it only means you are certain you are right.

When I say I “know” my brain is not in a vat, when I say I “know” when I go to sleep at night I am not going to wake up on the moon and suffocate from lack of oxygen, when I say I “know” my car is not going to change into a transformer while driving it; or anything equally absurd, I am saying I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Or as the dictionary says:

To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.

Hope that clears things up.

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

How? Most of us assume our waking experiences are real, but you assert that you can prove it - so how can you prove your experiences are real?

I never said I could prove anything, To know simply means to be convinced beyond any shadow of doubt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know
In other words when I say I know my experiences are real, I am saying:

This I perceive or understand as fact or truth; I apprehend clearly and with certainty.

Ken

 

[Davian]

You missed my point. The only way it could be proven true that we are brains in vats is if the "something" responsible for us being brains in vats reveals this truth to us.

How would you know that the source of this "reveal" was that "something", and not that you had simply imagined it?

 

[quatona]

If his sense of "knowing" has certain limits, he can just say so. I dont demand anything.



Never said there must be a world around the brain. But its reasonable that there might be. And it might be interesting.



There you go again. Never said I'm sure of other beings in 'brain/vat world'. But there might be.

That´s a lot of "mights".

You stipulated that I know I'm a brain-in-a-vat. So now I have 2 realities to contend with: apparent world + vat world. In a philosophical mood, I might apply "this very skepticism" to the whole package. But in the practical mood that I inhabit much more often, I'd want to know w.tee.f is going on, and who else might be involved.

So how do/would you go about finding out? (Other than by asking people who are just a product of your imagination?)
I mean, you don´t even believe what your senses tell you...so what would be the epistemological tools you´d trust?

Wouldnt you?

No. In a practical mood, I eat when I´m hungry, I answer the phone when it rings, I put new strings on my guitar...
In a practical mood, I am not occupying myself with academic "mights".

 

[durangodawood]

No. In a practical mood, I eat when I´m hungry, I answer the phone when it rings, I put new strings on my guitar...
In a practical mood, I am not occupying myself with academic "mights".

Well, now youre abandoning the hypothetical of yours that I was responding to. To return to it: you know you are a brain-in-a-vat, no "might" about it.... but youre not going to explore that in whatever way you can devise???

As for the epistemological tools... great question! I'd probably try everything. Do bear in mind your hypothetical requires quite a leap of imagination.

 

[durangodawood]

To know means to be 100% certain; without any shadow of doubt.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/know
It doesn’t mean you are right, it doesn’t mean you can prove yourself right; it only means you are certain you are right.

When I say I “know” my brain is not in a vat, when I say I “know” when I go to sleep at night I am not going to wake up on the moon and suffocate from lack of oxygen, when I say I “know” my car is not going to change into a transformer while driving it; or anything equally absurd, I am saying I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt. Or as the dictionary says:

To perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.

Hope that clears things up.

Ken

I'm afraid not. Yes, I get what "know" means. But that doenst render the question "HOW do you know?" meaningless or redundant. You simply refuse to answer it.