I need a rational reason to think...

[DailyBlessings]

Oh, I didn´t suggest prejudicing one over another. I haven´t even given an alternative explanation (except those that I gave for the purposes of reductio ad absurdum, that is).
Yet, I would for example prefer a more general explanation over an unnecessarily detailed one. There are ways to question the accuracy of our perception without already deciding that we must be "brains in a vat", but include this possibility. The implications would be by and large the same, without the added details.

Oh, no problem. Let them stand.
I just have little inclination to occupy myself with the consideration of an infinite number of hypothetical detailed scenarios when the hypothetical details add no significant relevance.

Such an attitude is fine with me, but I'll add a caveat in favor of human ingenuity in thought. I would have no objection to someone contemplating the possible implications of a brain-in-vat universe; all things being equal, if someone thinks that this might be a useful way of thinking about the universe and other questions- such as the aforementioned- it will have benefits far beyond its truth value. Simply dismissing the idea in favor of... nothing?... is hardly a productive enterprise and would negate the possibility of the benefits such a line of contemplation.

In my brief career as an anthropologist, I've always been interested in origins of things- why is it that suddenly in this millennium unspoken assumptions such as the utility of parsimony in decision making become "laws", and discussions about the dreams of God and evil demons become conversations about the vats of scientists? The debate over the situations proposed situations of philosophers like Descartes and Stroud is so interesting to me on many levels, that I would disappointed if the whole line of thought were discarded as plausibly irrational. In other words, there may not be any special truth value in the brain-in-a-vat theory, but there is no particular reason to suspect that it is not true either, so if there are other interesting reasons to pursue the line of inquiry (and I think there are) than we would be cheating ourselves to drop the ball on it too soon. This is the real danger of Occam's razor- it encourages the premature rejection of possibilities that may prove fruitful. We really know much less than we think we do.

 

[quatona]

Such an attitude is fine with me, but I'll add a caveat in favor of human ingenuity in thought. I would have no objection to someone contemplating the possible implications of a brain-in-vat universe; all things being equal, if someone thinks that this might be a useful way of thinking about the universe and other questions- such as the aforementioned- it will have benefits far beyond its truth value. Simply dismissing the idea in favor of... nothing?... is hardly a productive enterprise and would negate the possibility of the benefits such a line of contemplation.

Yes. We may not forget that we are talking philosophy, mindgames, hypotheticals about something we can not and will not know.
I completely agree with you that a pragmatic approach ("what does thinking about the world in this way help me with?") is perfectly legitimate. That´s the way I approach these questions myself, and I hold a couple of funny beliefs regardless of their parsimony (or lack thereof, for that matter).
However, I won´t open a thread "I need a rational reason to not believe that". I have no rational reasons to believe them, so I feel it would be disingenious to demand them for not believing them.

In my brief career as an anthropologist, I've always been interested in origins of things- why is it that suddenly in this millennium unspoken assumptions such as the utility of parsimony in decision making become "laws", and discussions about the dreams of God and evil demons become conversations about the vats of scientists?

I´m not really convinced that this is an accurate observation or description. Dreams of gods and evil are still there in abundance, and the utility of parsimony is not exactly a recent finding. Rarely (if ever) have I seen it proclaimed as a "law" in personal decisions, although I see it - consciously or unconsciously - being applied all the time in decision making (and this is not exactly new, either).
However, it was the OP himself who asked for "rational reasons" and provided a pseudo-scientific scenario of "brains in a vat".

The debate over the situations proposed situations of philosophers like Descartes and Stroud is so interesting to me on many levels, that I would disappointed if the whole line of thought were discarded as plausibly irrational. In other words, there may not be any special truth value in the brain-in-a-vat theory, but there is no particular reason to suspect that it is not true either, so if there are other interesting reasons to pursue the line of inquiry (and I think there are) than we would be cheating ourselves to drop the ball on it too soon. This is the real danger of Occam's razor- it encourages the premature rejection of possibilities that may prove fruitful. We really know much less than we think we do.

In view of the fact that all this is about the unknowable, anyways, I do not really see the point in your final sentence. Neither do I see how "too soon" is a useful term here.
"Cheating ourselves"? Come on. The OP holds (or pretends to hold) one very unparsimonous detailed notion - he cheats himself to drop the ball on all those other billions of alternative equally unparsimonous detailed notions that "might prove fruitful", and demands rational reason against it. Whilst I am merely rejecting one of the billions of potentially similar notions. Actually, I haven´t even been rejecting it - I have just pointed out how much he loses by adding unnecessary details.
As I have already said in my previous post: I can easily think of a notion (and in fact hold one) that includes "the brain in a vat" scenario for a possibility. Unless someone can explain how e.g. the brain in the vat is a potentially more fruitful idea than the brain in a vase I wouldn´t know why to exclude the vase or the vat by deciding for the other.
I fail to see how I am the one limiting the possibilities.

 

[DailyBlessings]

The OP holds (or pretends to hold) one very unparsimonous detailed notion - he cheats himself to drop the ball on all those other billions of alternative equally unparsimonous detailed notions that "might prove fruitful", and demands rational reason against it.

No, he assumed it to be untrue and asked us to "rationally" support his impulse not to consider it.

 

[us38]

...that the world, science, and everything around me exists and is not a string of images being fed to my brain in a vat. Can anyone provide me with one?

No.

 

[quatona]

No, he assumed it to be untrue and asked us to "rationally" support his impulse not to consider it.

I casn´t seem to read that from the OP. But maybe I am misunderstanding it.

Anyways, in this case my answer wouldn´t be much different:

If you don´t have nor need a rational reason to wildly guess that we are brains in a vat, you need no rational reason to dismiss it.
With everything else being equal, it´s reasonable to prefer the notion that adds less noise.

If, however, you approach these issues with "spiritual pragmatism " - i.e. this notion helps you with anything - what´s the point in asking for a rational reason to dismiss it; "With what does not assuming we are brains in a vat help me better than assuming we are?" would be the consistent question.

 

[JMC309]

Well, nobody says that Occam´s Razor can not lead to errors.

Occam himself used the principle of parsimony to claim that motion is unparsimonious.


My basic point is that you can't 'prove,' this or that about the universe, on this level. The only way is to take what you feel as being true. Some propositions (e.g. the brain in a vat) are rejected by most people without thinking about a rational reason, because we simply cannot live that way. When what we clearly experience does not have to be justified by reason. We simply live by it. I live by my experience fact that the world around me is real, and the thousands of needy people out there are not illusory and unimportant but real people that need help. I live by my experience that some actions are good and others evil, and not because of mere subjective likes and dislikes. Both of these I will believe without rational support. I feel that I'm the better for it...

Do you think that that means we can only disprove something when we do not experience it, rather than when we are unable to prove it? Is this not a better criterion, to seek and not to find, rather than to think and not to know? Let's not spout proofs for our foundational beliefs concerning reality and morality, but let's just say: 'Come and See!'

 

[quatona]

Occam himself used the principle of parsimony to claim that motion is unparsimonious.

I´m not sure I understand why you mention this.

My basic point is that you can't 'prove,' this or that about the universe, on this level.

That´s a pretty banal point, to me. Hardly anybody operates with the idea of "proof" in this field.
Had you mentioned that it is not about "rational reason" but about "proof" in your OP it would have prevented some misunderstandings.

The only way is to take what you feel as being true.

..or to make as little assumptions as possible.

Some propositions (e.g. the brain in a vat) are rejected by most people without thinking about a rational reason, because we simply cannot live that way.

I see no problem with living under this assumption.

When what we clearly experience does not have to be justified by reason. We simply live by it. I live by my experience fact that the world around me is real, and the thousands of needy people out there are not illusory and unimportant but real people that need help. I live by my experience that some actions are good and others evil, and not because of mere subjective likes and dislikes. Both of these I will believe without rational support. I feel that I'm the better for it...

(I don´t understand the grammatical structure of the first sentence and hence I´m not sure I understand its meaning.)
I can´t follow your reasoning because I fail to see how assuming reality is created in the mind is any different in its implications. Au contraire, I am inclined to think that I would have very good reasons to care a lot for reality if it is my own product.

Do you think that that means we can only disprove something when we do not experience it, rather than when we are unable to prove it?

I don´t operate with the concept of "proof" - so I guess I don´t think anything to this effect or contrary to it.

Is this not a better criterion, to seek and not to find, rather than to think and not to know?

I´m afraid I do not fully grasp the difference between those two wordings.

Let's not spout proofs for our foundational beliefs concerning reality and morality, but let's just say: 'Come and See!'

 

[JMC309]

I´m not sure I understand why you mention this.

Interesting side-note as we were discussing parsimony

That´s a pretty banal point, to me. Hardly anybody operates with the idea of "proof" in this field.
Had you mentioned that it is not about "rational reason" but about "proof" in your OP it would have prevented some misunderstandings.

What is the difference then between giving proof and giving a rational reason?

..or to make as little assumptions as possible.

Indeed, but as we all have different experiences on which we base our foundational assumptions (though some are universal) some will see necessary basic propositions where others see unnecessary ones.

I see no problem with living under this assumption.

But you have big problems with people living under the assumption that God exists, even though to them it is a similar proposition to the one that we are not brains in vats. We cannot live without it.

I can´t follow your reasoning because I fail to see how assuming reality is created in the mind is any different in its implications. Au contraire, I am inclined to think that I would have very good reasons to care a lot for reality if it is my own product.

How about if morality is all in the mind? Would it be binding beyond outside force?

I don´t operate with the concept of "proof" - so I guess I don´t think anything to this effect or contrary to it.

What is your concept of proof?

 

[quatona]

What is the difference then between giving proof and giving a rational reason?

Proof requires undeniable intersubjective evidence. Typically you don´t find it outside fixed frames of reference such as mathematics.

Indeed, but as we all have different experiences on which we base our foundational assumptions (though some are universal) some will see necessary basic propositions where others see unnecessary ones.

Sure. So how exactly could any rational reason trump your foundational assumptions, anyways?

But you have big problems with people living under the assumption that God exists, even though to them it is a similar proposition to the one that we are not brains in vats.

What do I have?

We cannot live without it.

I assure you I can live easily without any of these assumptions.

How about if morality is all in the mind? Would it be binding beyond outside force?

I´m not sure I understand the question. All my information is brought to me by my mind, whether it points to something outside of my mind makes no difference to me.
While dreaming I take my dreams very seriously.
Whether reality is out there or just dream theater makes no difference whatsoever for me.

What is your concept of proof?

See above.

 

[Shabby01]

Why do you need a reason for that? If you assume you are a brain in a vat, you'll still get hungry, thirsty, tired, and horny. You'll still have to do the things you have to do.

True, but some may find this definition rather vague, when speaking of idealism.

 

[ForiUisitator]

A brain in a vat. If the consciousness of the brain was said to be special in some way or separated from the rest of the universe, a supernatural explanation would be needed (some use the ideas of ME, EGO, or soul, all frivolous concepts based on unreasonable interpretations of experience). A lack of ACTUAL separate self is a central idea in buddhistic and even hinduistic philosophies and aswell, nondualism (an old but rather appliable idea from eastern religions and philosophies that the "parts" or things in the universe are not separate, but instead connected through causes and condicions, or cause and effect). This "I" has said that "it" needs a rational reason to think about and posit ANY models and claims about the universe, which is in essence, science. Science, therefore is done by any sentient being in the universe. Even fundamentalists do science.

 

[JMC309]

What precisely do you mean by science?

 

[ForiUisitator]

Science is knowledge and discourse about said knowledge (from the Latin word scientia [ski'entia]). Any (intellectually) honest knowledge. This science is done by anyone at any given moment: we act on information, do we not?

 

[FishFace]

...that the world, science, and everything around me exists and is not a string of images being fed to my brain in a vat. Can anyone provide me with one?

It is much simpler to suppose that your images of a cat are formed by a real cat than to suppose that they are formed by your vat's computer.

 

[Patashu]

...that the world, science, and everything around me exists and is not a string of images being fed to my brain in a vat. Can anyone provide me with one?

Well, I'd think about it this way; given the incredible, intricate complexity of the universe (think about it; 10^80 billion atoms, which have to move and interact 10^44 times a second) and the fact that the universe is the same, consistent for everyone and everything ever (ie it never screws up), thinking about how much processing power would be needed for such a perfect, complicated simulation and why a civilization would blow it all on this (they could have made it a whole lot simpler and accomplished the same thing, could they not have? I mean, come on, there are even 4 kinds of quarks and 4 kinds of neutrinos completely inessential to the functioning of life as we know it), it is far more likely that this reality is real.

That's just a hunch, anyway.

 

[DailyBlessings]

Who says that the "reality", whatever you could possibly mean by that, is a simpler explanation than an illusion? You can't even simply coherently explain what you mean you think reality is and why the cat qualifies as having it, I'll wager. If simplicity is the goal, suggesting that everything is an illusion or a dream is a far more elegant explanation for any problem- Everything is a byte of information being fed to you for whatever reason. No extra information, no metaphysical philosophy req'd. Same answer for every question.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Who says that the "reality", whatever you could possibly mean by that, is a simpler explanation than an illusion?

"Reality" is simpler in terms of explanatory entities. It goes something like this:

1. There is an objective reality that contains things that interact.

vs.

1. There is an objective reality that contains things that interact.
2. At least one of those things is causing me to experience a false "reality."

You can't even simply coherently explain what you mean you think reality is and why the cat qualifies as having it, I'll wager.

So what? No one has argued that reductionism can be endlessly applied. It might be brutely factual that the universe is made of quantum foam, strings, and branes. Attempting to define "string" in terms of something else would be impossible.

If simplicity is the goal, suggesting that everything is an illusion or a dream is a far more elegant explanation for any problem- Everything is a byte of information being fed to you for whatever reason. No extra information, no metaphysical philosophy req'd. Same answer for every question.

What makes that reason or answer a satisfactory stopping point?

 

[Patashu]

Who says that the "reality", whatever you could possibly mean by that, is a simpler explanation than an illusion? You can't even simply coherently explain what you mean you think reality is and why the cat qualifies as having it, I'll wager. If simplicity is the goal, suggesting that everything is an illusion or a dream is a far more elegant explanation for any problem- Everything is a byte of information being fed to you for whatever reason. No extra information, no metaphysical philosophy req'd. Same answer for every question.

Suggesting that I am a brain in a vat without any evidence for it is a violation of the principle of parsimony. Basically you've got two competing hypotheses; that I exist or that I exist and that my brain is in a vat, being fed information. Unless some differentiation can be made between the two (differing predictions, that is) then the former involves lesser elements and is the more desireable and useful hypothesis.

Short version: I'm a brain in a vat? Prove it!

 

[DailyBlessings]

Suggesting that I am a brain in a vat without any evidence for it is a violation of the principle of parsimony. Basically you've got two competing hypotheses; that I exist or that I exist and that my brain is in a vat, being fed information. Unless some differentiation can be made between the two (differing predictions, that is) then the former involves lesser elements and is the more desireable and useful hypothesis.

Short version: I'm a brain in a vat? Prove it!

Prove to me that "right" answers tend to have "lesser" elements, often enough to treat the principle of parsimony like a natural law.