Killing the Devil inside of me, with the help of Descartes?

[ToddNotTodd]

If there's no truth to any of this in any way, then does it ultimately matter if I bother to respond with a "yes" to your question?

Even in the matrix I have a need for “you” to agree with me.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I don't think Morpheus has a good reason to think he's still in the Matrix, although the Architect may have a good reason to do so, even if it's not the actual reason implied by him in the movie. Consider this evaluation of mine to be a kind of 'worm-hole' outcome through my application of Philosophical Hermeneutics. Not to be a wise-acre, but I'll give you a moment of pause to think over why I evaluate it in this way. I know you can figure it out ...

You have too much faith in me. I pondered that for a few hours, and I can't figure out why one would have a good reason to suspect being in a matrix and the other wouldn't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Even in the matrix I have a need for “you” to agree with me.

Is there really a "me" within the Matrix, if I were indeed in a Matrix with a "you"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have too much faith in me. I pondered that for a few hours, and I can't figure out why one would have a good reason to suspect being in a matrix and the other wouldn't.

The first hurdle to address in this, then (as I think of it, anyway), is that you really need to ponder more deeply just why it is you give any substantive credence to these Evil God/Brain-In-A-Vat/Matrix scenarios in the first place. So, ask yourself, "Why do I think these scenarios mean anything and/or have any real relevance?"

When doing so, just be assured that I think our respective abilities to worm our way out of this seeming conundrum have little to do with our individual IQ measures and much more to do with our educational influences and, thereby, our cognitive conditioning. (Notice, too: there's no accompanying 'winkie' emoticon to embellish my intended meaning. I'm actually saying this in a straight-forward manner.)

 

[Moral Orel]

The first hurdle to address in this, then (as I think of it, anyway), is that you really need to ponder more deeply just why it is you give any substantive credence to these Evil God/Brain-In-A-Vat/Matrix scenarios in the first place. So, ask yourself, "Why do I think these scenarios mean anything and/or have any real relevance?"

If there is a god who created the physical universe, then there is a real matrix and we're in it. If we're pondering whether there is a god or not, aren't the implications of that being true relevant?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If there is a god who created the physical universe, then there is a real matrix and we're in it. If we're pondering whether there is a god or not, aren't the implications of that being true relevant?

If our consciousnesses are in physical reality or not, we perceive it via a mental simulacrum of it. The particles are perceived by senses and converted into representations thereof that we are aware of. So functionally, there is no difference between a 'real' or a false matrix. Everything perceived is a modulated model of that sense-data (or model with lack thereof, for how could we tell?). The existence of particles independant of the mind perceiving them, is a stance that has to made on solely axiomatic grounds.

 

[Moral Orel]

If our consciousnesses are in physical reality or not, we perceive it via a mental simulacrum of it. The particles are perceived by senses and converted into representations thereof that we are aware of. So functionally, there is no difference between a 'real' or a false matrix. Everything perceived is a modulated model of that sense-data (or model with lack thereof, for how could we tell?). The existence of particles independant of the mind perceiving them, is a stance that has to made on solely axiomatic grounds.

I'm saying that if there is a god who created a physical universe, then that physical universe is a matrix and that god put us in it. If there is a god who simply created beings that perceive a physical universe through some other process, then that other process is a matrix and we're in that. You can assume there are particles independent of the mind perceiving them or not, you're still in a matrix because reality is crafted. The scary part of The Matrix isn't that Neo found out he was just experiencing 1s and 0s instead of real particles. The scary part was that someone was at the controls manipulating those 1s and 0s. So put someone at the controls of real particles and you're in the same boat.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I'm saying that if there is a god who created a physical universe, then that physical universe is a matrix and that god put us in it. If there is a god who simply created beings that perceive a physical universe through some other process, then that other process is a matrix and we're in that. You can assume there are particles independent of the mind perceiving them or not, you're still in a matrix because reality is crafted. The scary part of The Matrix isn't that Neo found out he was just experiencing 1s and 0s instead of real particles. The scary part was that someone was at the controls manipulating those 1s and 0s. So put someone at the controls of real particles and you're in the same boat.

I have a different perspective though. If there is a God or no, your consciousness is still in a Simulacrum of sorts. That this is controlled by another seems less scary to me than the idea of blind chance and mindless iterations of matter. At least there is reasoning behind it, and Reason applies to it. Functionally, I know that everything, and by extension myself, is not just irrationality. Not that I particularly care for the Matrix movies, or the Brain in a Vat ideas, because they all take for granted that matter must fundamentally exist even if we are deluded about it, which is placing the cart before the horse.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If there is a god who created the physical universe, then there is a real matrix and we're in it. If we're pondering whether there is a god or not, aren't the implications of that being true relevant?

I'd say we have different understandings and different working definitions of what constitutes a Matrix type scenario. The answer I was kind of looking for above was, "...because the Wachowski brothers wrote them that way." Now...you get a really, really, really BIG Winkie, particularly since I've implied something that in turn implies something even further, however political, about our respective claims about the actual reality we're all living in.

Now, back to that infernal problem of Excessive Skepticism ... as per the OP.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm saying that if there is a god who created a physical universe, then that physical universe is a matrix and that god put us in it. If there is a god who simply created beings that perceive a physical universe through some other process, then that other process is a matrix and we're in that. You can assume there are particles independent of the mind perceiving them or not, you're still in a matrix because reality is crafted. The scary part of The Matrix isn't that Neo found out he was just experiencing 1s and 0s instead of real particles. The scary part was that someone was at the controls manipulating those 1s and 0s. So put someone at the controls of real particles and you're in the same boat.

No, not necessarily. You're kind of jumping the gun, here, Nick, and doing so on the wrong track. Review the OP.

In this thread, we're not concerned about whether or how, particularly, we might try to 'know' if there is a God who has created a universe. Our concern is 'how do we know we're not being deceived,' which is another kind of epistemological question than the one you're segueing to. This thread has more to do with our knowing and/or understanding the nature of the world in which we live and it's relation to causal input and output than anything else.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is there really a "me" within the Matrix, if I were indeed in a Matrix with a "you"?

Beats me if there's really a "you". I know there's a something "I" call "me". Regardless of whether there's an actual "you", I find it useful to make an assumption that you could really exist, and proceed accordingly.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, not necessarily. You're kind of jumping the gun, here, Nick, and doing so on the wrong track. Review the OP.

In this thread, we're not concerned about whether or how, particularly, we might try to 'know' if there is a God who has created a universe. Our concern is 'how do we know we're not being deceived,' which is another kind of epistemological question than the one you're segueing to. This thread has more to do with our knowing and/or understanding the nature of the world in which we live and it's relation to causal input and output than anything else.

You sure I'm on the wrong track? If you want to know whether or not you're being deceived, it seems like two questions are the most pertinent. Is there anyone capable of deceiving me at that level? If so, does he want to?

 

[Moral Orel]

I have a different perspective though. If there is a God or no, your consciousness is still in a Simulacrum of sorts. That this is controlled by another seems less scary to me than the idea of blind chance and mindless iterations of matter. At least there is reasoning behind it, and Reason applies to it. Functionally, I know that everything, and by extension myself, is not just irrationality. Not that I particularly care for the Matrix movies, or the Brain in a Vat ideas, because they all take for granted that matter must fundamentally exist even if we are deluded about it, which is placing the cart before the horse.

What's so scary about mindless iterations of matter? It's not as though without a mind controlling it all it has to be random. Things can still be rational if the properties of matter and energy and such don't change.

The fear of someone being in control of a matrix in this thread is the fear that person has ill intentions. I guess "fear" and "scary" might be the wrong words. It's not as though we could do anything about it if we discovered the nature of that person to be malevolent.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Beats me if there's really a "you". I know there's a something "I" call "me". Regardless of whether there's an actual "you", I find it useful to make an assumption that you could really exist, and proceed accordingly.

I pretty much just take it for granted that, in addition to me, reality contains at least one other 'real' flesh and blood human being who goes by the screen-name, ToddNotTodd. The funny thing is, ToddNotTodd seems to doubt my real existence; or maybe he's just playing Instrumentalist games to keep the conversation going and at a more or less entertaining level. Could this be part of the truth of our shared reality? Can we ever know?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You sure I'm on the wrong track? If you want to know whether or not you're being deceived, it seems like two questions are the most pertinent. Is there anyone capable of deceiving me at that level? If so, does he want to?

As a realist, I would have to say "yes" to the first question but no to the second. However, the question then becomes: are we even "referring" to the same entity or set of entities? If not, then we have an additional epistemic problem dividing us before we can even get to the question of whether or not we can actually know if we're being deceived on some Uber-Level by an evil-demonic god entity?

 

[Moral Orel]

As a realist, I would have to say "yes" to the first question but no to the second. The question then becomes: are we even "referring" to the same entity or set of entities? If not, then we have an additional epistemic problem dividing us before we can even get to the question of whether or not we can actually know if we're being deceived on some Uber-Level by an evil-demonic god entity?

How do you know your answer to the second question is correct?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How do you know your answer to the second question is correct?

The answer to your present question will depend upon which epistemological (and even Hermeneutical) frame of reference we each think we're working in, respectively. Consider it a kind of linguistic and epistemic catch-22.

But, for the time being, maybe let's just go with some of the axiomatic intuitions about it all as put forth by a few philosophers since the time of Rene Descartes, like @Silmarien, or especially Hillary Putnam as a more specific instance ...

[And no, I'm not trying to be 'brainy' in some kind of irritating, trollish way, but I'd rather not just put it 'all' out there for all to beat on ... because then, if there was anything that could actually be known among all of us in common, it would be that 2PhiloVoid is an awful debater! ]

 

[Silmarien]

This thread got really solipsistic, really quickly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

This thread got really solipsistic, really quickly.

,...said one Brain-In-A-Vat to another.

 

[Silmarien]

,...said one Brain-In-A-Vat to another.

As long as there are multiple brains in the vat, we're not at solipism.

Keep in mind, I am actually an idealist. There's a big difference between having doubts concerning physical reality and having doubts concerning the existence of other minds. I'd say that you can withhold judgment on the former without going completely mad, but invoking solipsism proper is either an act of sophistry or of insanity.