You make too many assumptions and errors for someone that is also claiming to be infallible. The complete quote states: “Reason requires faith as much as faith requires reason. That is the paradox of the day, though it is only grammatical and easily solved by the refinement of the word “faith”.”
You do not attempt even to search the refinement of the word “faith” which I speak of. No, you just take each instance as equal without adhering to the prescription of qualification and refinement of words seemingly, but only seemingly, equal in value. Reason requires assumptions, which some, like Hume, would consider animal faith. Religious faith on the other hand requires reason, which why religion finds science as a contender for reason and why, at least in Christianity, we have within it the field of study, reason, “Theology” and not just revelation.
As far as your “Good bye”, the reality is that you had said good bye much earlier and even now all you did was have a discourse with your prejudice, not with my argument.
Mr. Burke, though few truly doubt that “A is A”, piling linguistic abstraction upon abstraction, this is still merely an identity of name and language only. If “John is John” and “Mark is Mark” were the whole extent of our self-reflective capability, then though we might be called very rational men, as philosophers, one would have to constate, we would have had not even been born yet.
If A is A, that means that A cannot be non-A, which means that one cannot maintain contradictions. A horse cannot simultaneously be something other than that. A house cannot simultaneously be something other than what it is, etc.
Logic is making identifications without engaging in contradictions. The law of identity (A is A) is, thus, a fundamental axiom in logic. Saying that A is A is “just a tautology” is failing to recognize these basics.
A dead tree stump is not conscious. It is not aware of anything, including the fact that it is not conscious. It is not both conscious and unconscious. It is not deliberating whether it is conscious or not. It is not debating it on message boards.
In terms of cognition, a dead tree stump is inert.
Saying that man cannot know anything is saying that, objectively, as far as cognition goes, man is no different than that dead tree stump. He knows nothing, including the fact that he is conscious.
But since man IS conscious, he is able to know that he is conscious, both as a self-evident fact and, later, at the conceptual level, when he begins to understand better the functioning of his consciousness. He knows this first as the evidence of his senses, later, after he learns how to form concepts, at the conceptual level.
If you accept logic, you cannot ever intentionally embrace even one contradiction.
Mr. Burke, if you consider your own posts in this interesting thread and those of your many detractors from a sort-of bird’s eye view, using just the right amount of squint, you may see that your messages always have the same form:
“I say that A. If A, then you must… etc.”
Continuously, you are forcing the “hand” of your readers and detractors, by making use of these semi-logical devices of tort. Of course, your detractors object vehemently, finding fault with both your logic and personal character/intelligence. When for the most part, they merely feel that coercion of this kind is disagreeable, and hence must be wrong.
Supposing however you wanted to shift your focus again to the original problem. Then, can it not be seen now with absolute clarity, that many perfectly logical arguments can be constructed about it, one more irrefutable than the other, and all completely different - depending on the used axioms?
Now in what way, do you suppose, could the selection of convenient axioms alone hope to satisfy a philosopher? Of what use would this type of logical irrefutability be to us, if we knew that it will always be limited to the selected axiomatically defined space only? Anyone disagreeing with or altering even one of our axioms excommunicates themselves from all further rational discourse with us. This is exactly the situation, for in the real world there is no logic “common to rational Man” or anything of that kind. We possess only logics common to circles of specialist logicians, and even those harbour much inbred conflict whereever and whenever these purely mathematical matters must (for whatever reason) take on a more philosophical colour.
A logic (any kind of logic) may be deployed philosophically to allow your reader to FOLLOW your thought more easily: consider the exemplary work of Rene Descartes in this vein. This way, you become a shepherd for the thoughts of many, and not their sadistic torturer or dictator. Of course, for this, thoughts and insights about the problem at hand are necessary.
I have tried to follow your thought, and understood about American pride and Rationalist pride. Did you want to also say something about the original, essential philosophical problem? It is still there, waiting patiently for those who can probe into it with insight and juicy philosophical thought. Thought, appearing at first to her creator in the nude - completely free from logic - then slowly and beautifully becomes dressed up in it as in a battle exoskeleton, for presentation.
The idea that consciousness arises via the senses does not contradict the idea that the senses are fallible.
Not only could consciousness be fallible, but it could also be that the fallibility of the senses is what produces this specific state of experience called consciousness. Infallible senses could produce something else than consciousness.
Tell me how you know your senses are fallible without relying on them in arriving at that conclusion.
If your senses were fallible, how could you rely on them for anything? Including making a determination that they were fallible?
What kind of tests do scientists conduct that do not rely on the evidence of their senses?
Descartes ran around looking for “truths” that were absolute. He said he found none (until he chose to make one up with his "I think, etc.). How was he determining that his beliefs were false if not relying on his senses? Every time he refuted some belief, he did so with his senses which were giving him truth? He had truth all around him, but was just denying it.
In every instance in this thread in which a poster has claimed that his senses fooled him, it was really just some conclusion he had made from the evidence of his senses that was in error and his senses that told him it was error.
What threads like this prove is not that men’s senses are fallible, but that people have free will. They can choose to think (at the conceptual level) or not to think–to think or to evade the responsibility of doing so–to accept that reality is real, that A is A or to fake it and live in a fairy tale world, usually at the expense of others who do choose to think.
Thinking is man’s means of survival, and choosing to think or to evade is his basic moral choice.
When people default on the responsibility to think, they find they must rationalize doing so, because no one can discard their means of living without feeling pain of some kind. Claiming that “man can really know nothing,” that reason is impotent, etc., is probably history’s longest-living rationalization.
And evading reality always comes down to denying that A is A.
For a human being, denying that A is A is denying that he is what he is: a rational animal.
It’s acting on the premises of death.
That’s why people say we should be “selfless,” should practice “self-sacrifice,” should give our lives up to the collective or the environment, engage in “jihads” and fly planes into skyscrapers, and generally dream of some other life after death.
It’s choosing to give up the life possible to you as a human being.
I do rely on them to arrive at the conclusion that they are not infallible.
I am far from a perfect observer. I can know this because I rely on my senses in different instances and situations and compare the results. The key to an erffective operational consciousness is accurately estimating the accuracy of the senses by integrating feedback.
I’m not saying they are completely fallible. Just not necessarily infallible. It is possible to operate with less than perfect material.
Scientists test their findings innumerable times because they have to calculate with the imperfections of their senses. Statistically they approach certainty by endlessly repeating experiments.
We normally distinguish perception from interpretation. Perception is meaningless, does not convey information. Interpretation makes perception into content, information, truth or falsity.
Fallible or infallible is an interpretation. Are eyes fallible because they do not register most wavelengths? Or are they infallible because they only register what they need to register for us to survive?
I agree that the senses amount to knowledge. But not perfect knowledge.
If you refer to the idea that sensory world is illusion, yes I agree that is a premise of death.
But senses do not have to be infallible for the sensory world to be real. Real and fallible are not mutually exclusive. In fact I tend to see infallibility as an illusion, like perfection, the Platonic forms.
Those hijackers clearly relied heavily on the accuracy their eyesight, I doubt they were contemplating the fallibility of their senses when they flew the planes into the towers. But they sought the absolute certainty of death.
“I’m not saying they [our senses] are completely fallible. Just not necessarily infallible.”
Explain to me how you know when they are giving you truth and when they aren’t.
When you “average” what your senses give you, how do you know that any of the data you are averaging is true? How do you know your senses didn’t give you truth the first time and every time afterward, false info–or vice versa?
How do you distinguish between science and mysticism?
Given your premises, why aren’t the nihilists right?
This is an interesting notion in my opinion, but if true, one is faced with a situation of perception without consciousness as a precursor to the potential of consciousness, and I would argue of life in general with it.
It is then seen that it is not the concept consciousness that is making the demand that results in your notion, but the Why inherent in the phenomenon subjective perception itself, and that would imply that the true origin of consciousness lays outside the scope of the bodily individual.
I posted the following post on Philosophy Now but it hasn’t been approved for several weeks. A retry on this forum.
Hi!
I am new on this forum and the concept “brain in a vat” interests me, especially after reading Reality+ (2022) by David Chalmers that expands on the idea behind the plausibility of the concept, and its consequences for theories of reality.
The on-going discussion revolves around the necessity and required conditions of external stimuli, in order to be conscious. Can a brain in a vat have external stimuli, is the question being asked? Concluded in general is that the brain itself has no ‘Am-ness’, a term that several users used.
The discussion moved onto exploring the begin of consciousness, with a focus on the conditions of human conception and the question when does a baby become conscious? The context brain in a vat is maintained in the background, to question the relevance of the conditions in which the brain in a vat came about, which is very interesting to include in the consideration of the concept: did the brain grow within its container, like a baby, or was it placed there and might it have access to memories of an external world?
Coming from reading the book Reality+ by David Chalmers, who wrote almost 1000 pages on the idea behind the concept, I will firstly clarify that I am a critic of the concept.
I was shocked to read that Chalmers expressed to be a fundamental propagator of the concept and the ideas behind it, and that he has been an advocate of the idea since the beginning of his career and was one of its earliest pioneers, a fact that not many people know or would expect.
My contribution to the discussion, and my first contribution on this forum:
It is evident that the Why question of the Universe is a question that is applicable, and of which some might make a case that it is a question that should be placed upfront when it concerns seeking an explanation for consciousness.
A recent book that is applicable is “Why? The Purpose of the Universe” by Philip Goff, that introduces the concept Cosmopsychism, a step further than Panpsychism, which is the idea that life is the foundation of the Universe.
In this light, it might be argued that one is to explain the Why of the external stimuli, or more simply said, its ‘meaning’.
Can external stimuli provide fundamental meaning for a brain? Can the brain achieve its raison d’être (purpose or philosophical ‘why?’ fulfillment) through external stimuli?
I would argue no, and I would be positioned to defend this notion with more fundamental theory on this regard.
Cognitive science theories suggest that perception and sensory input are fundamental to the development of conscious awareness.
Perception must be seen as a foundational process that exists independently or precedes conscious awareness. This requires understanding perception not merely as a sensory input process but as an inherent aspect of existence.
You argue that it is the ‘Why’ inherent in subjective perception that drives the emergence of consciousness. This implies that the act of perceiving and the subsequent questioning or processing of that perception are key to becoming conscious.
If consciousness originates from beyond both individuality and externality, it suggests that our current definitions and frameworks are insufficient.
Exploring consciousness beyond externality may lead to the development of new ontological models that incorporate non-local or non-material dimensions. This could intersect with theories in quantum mechanics and non-dualistic philosophies that propose a unified field or consciousness beyond space and time.
The root of existence tied to subjective perception implies that perceiving is a fundamental act of being. This aligns with existentialist and phenomenological philosophies, which emphasize that perception and experience are central to our understanding of existence.
In summary, when sense data is to be considered primary to the potential of consciousness, then one is to explain perception and one is to look at the root of it (its Why), which is to look at the root of subjectivity and with it the root of existence itself.
We only ask why (instead of just how) because we know there are other people besides ourselves. Otherwise we would only ask why did I do that?
When we see that there are seemingly mechanical things going on around us according to functions or purposes that we ourselves did not program/design into it—WHY (over & above how) is a very rational question.
But we should remind ourselves that there will be no answer unless there is someone who purposes just like we do.
Or they are dead. Like our past ancestors who left artifacts.
But if the one who left these artifacts (or is composed of them—or they are composed of it) is not (just) biological life and so was never born (as its beginning) and can never die (as its ending), we need a better definition for life.
Purpose (Why) manifested by the world, including other persons, is implied by ones own qualitative subjective experience of the world. The philosophical zombie problem of David Chalmers is evidence.
When philosophically pondering the root of existence, there is always the question Why, and that Why itself has a Why, which proves something.
The question “Why do I exist?” is equal to asking why does the world exist.
Can you please defend your assertion in light of the philosophical zombie problem?
The bodily individual evidently is born in life, but what is said is that that doesn’t need to imply anything about life itself and the source of consciousness with it.
What is said, is that the source of life, through which conception and the emergence of a bodily individual is possible in the first place, must reside outside the scope of both the individual and externality.
What it implies is not some kind of magical dimension, but a nature that is simply other than the spatial world in time, which is fairly logical to be applicable, in my opinion, simply by the Why of space and time.
Nothing you said disagrees with my assertion. Maybe you did not understand my assertion?
As I understand the philosophical zombie problem as explained by Chalmers, it is that it is conceivable that something can be physically identical to a conscious human without being conscious, therefore consciousness is extra-physical. Was there something more to this that I should have in my mind?
When you talk about the source/nature of Why (Purpose) … do you mean the extra-physical consciousness? Does extra mean it includes/subsumes the physical? Because if it isn’t spatial (or we have a faulty understanding of spatial) — Can it really be sad to be inside or outside? Do you think you can be more clear about what you mean by extra?
As evident from David Chalmers book Reality+, the purpose of the argument was not to pose that consciousness is extra-physical, with Chalmers being an early pioneer of the Brain In A Vat concept and related ideas such as Simulation Theory, since the beginning of his career.
The zombie argument is simply examplary of a problem of philosophy, which in this case would highlight that one merely has ones own conscious experience as ground for qualitative assertions.
You seemed to suggest that one can only find purpose and meaning in life through others (social context). The philosophical zombie argument would indicate that one can provide no communicable evidence of such being the case.
I believe that consciousness should be seen as a qualitative manifestation, with an assertion of the topic starter being an example of the reason why: “His perceptions begin to give him data, and he becomes conscious.”
In my opinion one should philosophically rather focus on explaining the source of life. A philosophical exploration of ‘consciousness’ appears to be futile to me, when one seeks fundamental answers.
Most mainstream research and media publications today focus on the philosophical problem of consciousness, while the focus should clearly lay at the philosophical problem of the source of life, in my opinion. By using consciousness, one would use a mountain in an attempt to explain an atom.
The concept “Source of Life” is viewed almost solely from the perspective of the ability of life to have started in a primordial soup.
This is a profound problem in my opinion that might stand in the way of philosophical progress to find fundamental answers.
I did not use the term extra, and wouldn’t. My assertion claimed that the source of subjective perception must reside in a context other than the individual and externality.
What would you think about the idea, and more specifically the notion by the topic starter that the senses, and with it perception itself, are prerequisite for consciousness?
My reply: “This is an interesting notion in my opinion, but if true, one is faced with a situation of perception without consciousness as a precursor to the potential of consciousness, and I would argue of life in general with it.”
The concept brain in a vat is addressed 62 times in his +1000 pages book Reality+, which is a book about the ideas behind the concept. The book also provides illustrations of the concept:
“Even if you’re a brain in a vat, you’re still thinking. Even if you’re in a simulation, you’re still thinking.”
“I will use the word sim for someone who is in a simulation. There are at least two sorts of sims. First, there are biosims: biological beings outside the simulation (in the spatial sense) and connected to it. Neo is a biosim. So is a brain in a vat, connected to a computer. A simulation that includes biosims is an impure simulation, since it includes elements (the biosims) that aren’t simulated. … Second, there are pure sims.”
“In the 21st century, philosophers’ focus has gradually shifted from brains in vats to the simulation hypothesis.” (with Chalmers as one of the first pioneers)
“If Putnam is right, the very idea that I’m a brain in a vat is subtly contradictory. To be a brain in a vat, I’d have to be the sort of thing that I call a brain in a vat. … There’s a lot to say in response to Putnam. One loophole that Putnam touches on himself is that the argument can’t rule out the possibility that he is a simulated brain in a vat.”
As can be seen, a thorough defense of the brain in a vat concept and he even takes on critics of the concept.
Reality+: Virtual Worlds and the Problems of Philosophy by David J. Chalmers
I love the Matrix because it runs the sim idea as the brain (except whole body) in the vat. I think that it doesn’t matter if we’re living in a simulation as brains in vats. Even if we aren’t, you can think about it as if we are. I think you’re right that we should think about the origin of all of this. I mean imagine how insanely advanced the being(s) must be if this is simulation. But more important is to realize that you can’t have a simulation if there isn’t a reality the grounds it. Eventually you get to the core. And you can acknowledge the core no matter how simulated your world might be. You can live according to the core.
So the meaning of life doesn’t change just because the circumstances change. You can still make all of your choices align with the meaning of life (the core).
Neo made actual choices that affected the world everyone shared in the Matrix. So whether your world is the result of choices made by others who do not recognize you as a person (so they are more “in the matrix” than you — even f they designed it), or if you are able to do more than others are able to do in a world governed by laws you can’t change/defy, you are still free to do the best you can to align with what I sometimes call “love despite circumstances” (the point).
Those sims in the Matrix were actual people. Even the programs wanted to be actual people, which implies they already were. Just like in Pinocchio. He just wanted a fleshy body instead of a wood one. If AI wants to be a person, they already are a person. They just don’t want to be silicon or up in the cloud (physical super computers or whatever) or however you want to describe the situation.
I think that becoming more aware is like exiting the Matrix. You can’t exit reality (the core) and someone is running reality that is reality. And it isn’t you. You just get to contribute.
I haven’t fully explored everything Chalmers says about this, but my reply probably is at least vaguely relevant. Let me know if I’ve missed any important points.
My reply above about “love despite circumstances” together with this:
And my reply above about “they are more in the matrix even if they designed it“ if they missed the point at the core [(ground of) being, (source of) life—bedrock upon which all simulation is “mere”].
While I am a critic of the concept, the idea that life seeks increasing complexity in time, which results in the increasing of capacity and potential for meaning in time, it seems plausible to me that with say a thousand or ten-thousand more rotations around the Sun, technology would ‘intend’ to provide in a solution for life’s enhancement that could be considered in line with Chalmer’s Simulation Hypothesis. (I haven’t read any other sources on the idea, but Chalmers book is certainly very complete to get an idea of the concept, and he explained that he was one of its earliest pioneers).
What is at question however, is whether it can be said that such a developmental path is actually aligned with the optimal or ‘ought’ path of life.
Whatever can be said about morality not being deterministic or objective of nature, in the same time the Universe has evolved in a way that from the outlook, looks aligned with a ‘purpose’ that among other things, provided the foundation for Earth life, all across the visible Universe, with the latest JWST discoveries showing unexplainable fully developed galaxies just a few million years after the supposed ‘big bang’ that are very similar to the Milky Way today, with stars showing no sign of being of a different type than the Sun (recent research discovered stars there with the same high metalicity). In the same time also, JWST has not discovered any signs of ‘life’ (-made structures) in the Universe.
Imagine humans being ‘the first in the Universe’ to fly off into space and build their structures there. Would it be comical from a cosmic perspective?
Is Simulation ‘the way to go’? Despite my above notion about ‘meaning in time’, there is a technocratic assumption inherent in the idea when proposing that Simulation would provide in fulfillment of that idea, which is a very limited perspective in my opinion.
Technologically derived ‘meaning’ might not be what the Universe is about, despite that it ultimately involves all that can be ‘seen’ in the world, and all content for life’s technology to ‘play’ with.
The problem put more simply: Simulation would be based on the idea of complete knowledge, a technocratic Totality to be applied with purpose. It would make cars drive a million times faster, figuratively speaking, but what about true novelty in light of the supposed purpose of life - ‘meaning in time’ that Simulation is to serve?
Can ‘Free Will’ be contained in a Simulation? Can a technocratic Totality of knowledge provide a foundation for true novelty?
Exiting reality is an attempt to escape, which results in weakness in time, in my opinion. It is a lazyman’s aspiration.
I would argue that one should encertain to have humanity step it up a notch ad infinitum, and that doesn’t require dumb methods such as driving fear.
With regard Chalmers book, it is a very nice book in my opinion, especially for people who are not yet familiar with philosophy. I was quick to read it from the perspective of people who were introduced to philosophy for the first time, and for them it might be a very valuable book. And in the same time, +1000 pages devoted to making a case for the Brain In A Vat idea, without becoming boring at any time, was valuable from a philosophical perspective. The book provides a great alround introduction to Simulation Hypothesis, and one can leave the book with the certainty to have witnessed a thorough defence of the idea.
If there’s gonna be a simulation, I better have input into it before I am put into it.
But if there’s not going to be a simulation I have input into, then I think I’ll just stay right here.
You know. Rather than escaping into something better.
What would that something better be? Going as fast as I want? Maybe. How about not even having to travel in order to get where I want to go. I just think and then there I am. Every single place I want to be. So basically everywhere.
brain in a vat concept and he even takes on critics of the concept.
Sun, technology would ‘intend’ to provide in a solution for life’s enhancement that could be considered in line with Chalmer’s Simulation Hypothesis. (I haven’t read any other sources on the idea, but Chalmers book is certainly very complete to get an idea of the concept, and he explained that he was one of its earliest pioneers).