Then I defer to your omniscience. For myself, I cannot scale such heights. I seek logic that works for me, with all my faults and deficiencies. — Pattern-chaser
BIV Hypothesis (BIV): I have lived a normal life on earth for many years. Last week I was, without realizing it, removed from my body. My brain was placed in a vat of chemicals and hooked up to various electrodes which produce in me sensory experiences just like those I would have if I were still in the ordinary world. For example, I have sensory experiences as if I am in my apartment; as if I am in my office; as if I am eating by the lake. But really, I am never in any of the places my sensory experiences show me to be in. I am a brain-in-a-vat, and I have been for a week, but I never noticed it.
Real Life Hypothesis (RL): I am now in my apartment having sensory experiences of my apartment. In general, my sensory experiences as a fairly accurate guide to my present surroundings. I have never been en-vatted. — PossibleAaran
everything stated to happen in RL here also happens in BIV account. The measure of "I am in my apartment, etc." is given by the BIV world too (that is, my body in the experiential world in my apartment of the experiential world). In this BIV, the person is still in the ordinary world. They have been all those places (there body, as experienced was there). Being BIV would just be an extra fact they might not know about. — TheWillowOfDarkness
To suppose an illusion indistinguishable from reality is like claiming an ocean submerged within another ocean. Where's the logic in that? — BrianW
Sheesh! I just said, you do not need evidence to build a critique. But you'd be welcome to take advantage of the other person's arsenal, if you'd like.What evidence? The point of this discussion is to ask how we deal with speculations for which there is no evidence. — Pattern-chaser
My point is RL is still present in the BIV context. — TheWillowOfDarkness
But this topic offers the brain-in-a-vat scenario as an example of a speculation that is possible, but comes without any evidence. And it asks: how should we deal with such speculations, logically? — Pattern-chaser
You seem to have mistaken Occam's Razor for something authoritative. :chin: It's just a rule of thumb, a way of guessing when we can think of no better way to proceed with our reasoning.
I'm unsure of the continuing purpose of the thread honestly. — Jake
Having no means to assign probabilities of correctness to either speculation, we have no means to compare them. We can say that they are not both correct, as they contradict one another. We can say that one or both of them could be incorrect. Logic allows no further justified conclusions, isn't that so? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
And besides, inference is unreliable. I prefer deductions, or a simple admission that 'I don't know'. — Pattern-chaser
You seem to have mistaken Occam's Razor for something authoritative. :chin: It's just a rule of thumb, a way of guessing when we can think of no better way to proceed with our reasoning. — Pattern-chaser
To contextualise what I was saying earlier, everything stated to happen in RL here also happens in BIV account. The measure of "I am in my apartment, etc." is given by the BIV world too (that is, my body in the experiential world in my apartment of the experiential world). In this BIV, the person is still in the ordinary world. They have been all those places (there body, as experienced was there). Being BIV would just be an extra fact they might not know about. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Having no means to assign probabilities of correctness to either speculation, we have no means to compare them. We can say that they are not both correct, as they contradict one another. We can say that one or both of them could be incorrect. Logic allows no further justified conclusions, isn't that so? :chin: — Pattern-chaser
To which I say: No, that is not so. RL is more probable than BIV, because of the argument I gave earlier in this thread about the superiority of RL as an explanation of sensory experience. — PossibleAaran
I deny that all - in your terms - inference is unreliable. — PossibleAaran
RL and BIV are identical in their explanatory power. Both account completely, and without contradiction, for the human experience that results from either one of them being true. — Pattern-chaser
My own preference is quite old fashioned. If there is no reason to prefer one hypothesis over another, do not choose either. Suspend judgement. — PossibleAaran
I see that your own suggestion is to admit that we have no reason and yet still prefer one hypothesis if it is more useful to us for some purpose. — PossibleAaran
power is not the only criterion of explanation. Simplicity is another and I argued that RL is simpler than BIV... — PossibleAaran
The other sort is underdetermination by all possible evidence. In such a case, no matter how much effort we expended, we could never get any evidence that would settle which theory is true. If BIV and RL were cases of underdetermination - and I say they aren't - they would likely be cases of underdetermination by all possible evidence. — PossibleAaran
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.