No. There is no reason to believe we are a brain-in-a-vat, but there is equally no reason to believe we are in base reality - the experience would feel "real" either way.

Good idea for a survey. Can we divide the results between those who actually are brains in vats and those who are not?

Yes.

Does that mean that there is no conceivable way that I could be a brain in a vat? No.

What's the essential difference between a skull and a vat?

I monitor all the vats.

Well before asking a question like this perhaps some context would be helpful, otherwise this is random postulation.

Yes.

I'm a brain in a skull in a body in a social ecosystem in a natural ecosystem in a planetary biosphere ... Too much unnecessary detail for a sim.

No.

I mean Yes. I misread the question.

Brains can't produce consciousness, and I am conscious, so I know that I am not a physical brain-in-a-vat.

Too much unnecessary detail for a sim. — 180 Proof

Spot on. This world is just too generously rich in infinite details and complexity to qualify as a simulation.

I am a fake experience feeding on itself.

I'm a bat in a vat.

I am not a brain in a vat, simply because I am self aware, therefore more than a brain. Now I could be a spirit occupying a brain in a vat, but the experiences I am being fed are still real as they are experiences processed through the brain which I occupy.

I think the closer we get to being able to create brains in a vat in this world, the more likely it is that we actually are brains in vats.

There is also the possibility that our simulated universe differs from the "real" one (or at least the universe that is the next level up from us, since we could be a simulation in a simulation) to such a degree that whatever we are is very different from a brain in a vat. Our creators might have generated our world as an experiment to study the evolution of simulated matter that works in profoundly different ways from "real" matter, in which case, we can't extrapolate what we really are as seen by our creators.

It could explain the lack of intelligent life in our very vast "local" area. No need to explore space, a difficult proposition using anything but Von Neumann probes on absolutely massive timescales. Just get a Dyson Sphere going, plug into 2 billion years of power, and spawn a simulated universe.

Maybe 14 billion years of history and four fundemental physical forces is a huge simplification. Our creators could be dealing with 14 trillion years of history and forty fundemental forces working similar to gravity, the strong nuclear force, etc.

Anyhow, Yaldaboath doesn't need to simulate that entire universe, he and his Archons only need to simulate your experience, and really only the self conscious parts, so perhaps only 50 bits at a time. If you assume no free will, they also have a pretty good way to keep ahead of the information required to keep the simulation up, and they can always have you go to sleep to do patch updates.

Don’t know, don’t care. I have this life or I apparently have this life. Either way, this life is mine.

The deepest intuition of a mentally healthy person informs us that we're not attached to anything. Thus we're not brains-in-vats. IMO.

Yes, if this were a simulation there is no way for us to know the energy available in the real world. It could be unlimited.

Even going off what we see in this world, a video game character such as in Minecraft or Grand Theft Auto would assume they are in the reality, as even the limits of the map are just part of their "reality" as the limits of the universe are ours.

There is no way for us to tell whether or not we are in base reality.

So we agree then?

My skull is my Vat. The ‘computer’ is a rather primitive organic sensory system with limited capacity.

A global skeptical hypothesis is something which we have no evidence for or against. It's kind of misleading to ask whether it's known to be untrue, because it hasn't really entered into the domain of things you can know are or aren't true yet. Put simply, there's no point talking about it until you have an idea of what evidence for and against would look like.

If you don't live in the real world, then you have no clue how much detail is normal, easy, necessary, etc. Universe simulators with our level of detail could be a dime a dozen at the corner store. But it's equally possible that the only thing being simulated is what you're thinking about at this very second, which is pretty simple and happens to include a belief that you've existed more than a second and that you're living in a complex universe that you're believing isn't simulated (and your belief is true, in that said universe doesn't actually need to be simulated because it doesn't exist).

Some brain in a vat told me I'm not, and he should know.

Do you know whether or not you're a brain-in-a-vat being fed fake experiences by computers? (15 votes) — Soumadeep Ghosh

Yes, I know that I am not.

I'm a brain in a skull in a body in a social ecosystem in a natural ecosystem in a planetary biosphere ... Too much unnecessary detail for a sim. — 180 Proof

Spot on. This world is just too generously rich in infinite details and complexity to qualify as a simulation. — Olivier5

Unnecessary detail and complexity are not really indicators that this isnt a sim, a sufficiently sophisticated sim would have both those things. I think its tempting to think those are indicators of not being in a sim because it’s hard to imagine a sim that isnt flawed in these ways given the existing flawed “sims” with current technology. In principal though, I din’t think its impossible for a sim to be just as rich or richer in complexity or detail than “reality”

Do you know whether or not you're a brain-in-a-vat being fed fake experiences by computers? — Soumadeep Ghosh

Who's asking?

, I din’t think its impossible for a sim to be just as rich or richer in complexity or detail than “reality” — DingoJones

Ok but then, if there's no perceptible difference between a sim and reality, if the sim is just as good as reality, then whether you are a brain in a vat in a sim or a brain in a skull in reality makes no difference whatsoever. The question is moot.

Well my point was about complexity and detail not necessarily the indiscernibility between reality and a sim but yes its quite possible it makes no difference. I would say however you that it could, depending on the nature of the sim. If we have a Matrix situation then there are ways of telling the difference, and the difference between sim and reality would be whether or not the human race has been transformed into batteries by robots, that breaking free of the sims is means of survival etc, just as an example.
Also the complexity and detail could be just as rich but there could still be telltale signs of the sim, like everyone is a cartoon or some other obvious sign.
Have you seen the movie “Ready Player One”?

Yes.

I'm a brain in a skull in a body in a social ecosystem in a natural ecosystem in a planetary biosphere ... Too much unnecessary detail for a sim. — 180 Proof

You just think you are. Introspection is unreliable.

I'm a bat in a vat. — Tom Storm

What is it like?

Even more, I know I am. And yes, whereas "introspection is unreliable", abduction (Peirce) is not.

You're abducting from information gained by introspection.