We could be a brain in a vat, we cannot know. But we need senses to get data for our brains. The vat would stimulate the senses too, as senses all go back to some process in the brain. But if we lack all of them, we won't have a world at all. About the world, maybe, maybe not.

Our common sense intuitions do not reflect the nature of the world mind-independently. Then again, if no one is around to ask any questions and recognize things, what sense is there in talking about a world? It's tricky.

But we need senses to get data for our brains — Manuel

I could be a disembodied omnipresent eternal solipsistic dreaming consciousness.

We don't know if such a thing is possible. There's no instances of consciousness absent body and dreams reflect stuff we got from the world, in terms of seeing other people and ordinary objects. We then do crazy stuff in dreams, but we cannot say that a person lacking actual experience could have such dreams.

I mean, if you can, tell me something that isn't relational and then maybe we can proceed. I can't think of a single example. Or maybe you have some different concept of relation than what I'm using. — Manuel

This looks like a mistake to me:
1. What does it mean for me, for instance, to have a location?
2. It means that, given something else that has a location, I have my location relative to that.
3. Okay, but what does it mean for that thing, relative to which I have a location, to have a location?
See what I mean? It’s circular in a non-helpful way to define something having a location in terms of something else having a location.

So the natural thing is to start with a location that has an extra feature, as my location does, by being an instance of ‘here’. And that seems doubly right as an entry point because here is always where we are and the universe is always where we are.

We get a little more to go on too, in my recognition that there’s always a here for me, which is not true of my jacket, which also always has a location, or my phone, which always has a location but only knows ‘here’ as its location, and only relative to other things. That’s not the way my here works, because I know what neither of those does, that I’m spatial and must have a location, and that location is always at least ‘here’, whatever it is in relation to other things.

I don’t need to deny that location is relational exactly; it’s just not obviously helpful as a place to start. If there are things we want to say about it later that have a more relational form, at least by then we should have a little more to say about what that relation is and how it works. How much could we say about the relation we tried to start with? It’s like we were just doing trigonometry and then calling it a day.

What the relation is between ‘here’ and other locations, I’m trying not to prejudge; whether other locations are the same kind of location, or locations in the same sense, as ‘here’, I’m also trying not to prejudge.

There's no instances of consciousness absent body — Manuel

Look up and you cant see your body. Now you have evidence of consciousness absent body.

So the natural thing is to start with a location that has an extra feature, as my location does, by being an instance of ‘here’. And that seems doubly right as an entry point because here is always where we are and the universe is always where we are. — Srap Tasmaner

Hmm. We have a location here on Earth, as I understand it, the Universe doesn't really have a location, you can't say it's to the right of nothing or behind something else. Unless there are other universes, welp, we don't know about that.

Similar to when we say, there's no up or down in space, this is what we can't help but bring to the world.

That’s not the way my here works, because I know what neither of those does, that I’m spatial and must have a location, and that location is always at least ‘here’, whatever it is in relation to other things. — Srap Tasmaner

It doesn't make sense to me to say that my jacket or phone knows its location. They just are.

So you're tying space to a location, here, namely where your body is. There is a sense my body is in my city, in my house, but I could be off in metaphysical space, thinking about "thing in themselves" or thinking about the novel I am currently reading. So where would I be, if I'm totally lost daydreaming?

at least by then we should have a little more to say about what that relation is and how it works. How much could we say about the relation we tried to start with? — Srap Tasmaner

Which is, the relation of my location... in the universe, on Earth? The relation is between me and something that is not me, in some very vague sense.

I'm not saying you don't have a legitimate puzzle here, these things happen. I'm not understanding the problem too well. That makes sense too, many of these puzzles are hard to even talk about. In my experience.

Here the is situation in 2021. We know of a single universe (hello there, neighbor), of finite age. It has a history. Here we are. Neat!

That is all that we can shown to be true as I type this sentence.

If this turns out to he the WHOLE PICTURE then, obviously, the next question will be: how did our universe come into being?

Jesus the Christ is the best answer to date. In my opinion.

We have a location here on Earth — Manuel

My location, then, is to be defined relative to a thing that is not me. But not just any thing. If I am a member of a club, my location cannot be defined relative to the club. Why not?

So you're tying space to a location, here, namely where your body is. — Manuel

Not where my body is, but where I am; I am not my body, but a person, a living, thinking organism.

My location, then, is to be defined relative to a thing that is not me. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes, I think so.

But not just any thing. If I am a member of a club, my location cannot be defined relative to the club. Why not? — Srap Tasmaner

I assume you're using the club as a metaphor for the universe. I'd ask, how do I know I'm a member of the club? Am I the club itself? Well, no. If I was the club itself, I couldn't ask questions about it, because I would be the club, presumably lacking consciousness and contextual awareness.

For me to be a part of the club, I have to be quite isolated from it, enough to form some kind of cognition that allows me to contemplate these things.

Not where my body is, but where I am; I am not my body, but a person, a living, thinking organism. — Srap Tasmaner

I agree that you are not your body.

Tell me this though: If I am in my room, intensely daydreaming about a novel, where am I? I am not present to the situation of my body, as when someone says "he's not here at the moment" or "he's in Neptune", meaning he's not here with us at this moment, paying attention.

But if you insist that this makes no sense, because I am were my body is, not where my thoughts are at any given moment, then the body becomes an essential component of the identity of here-ness we are trying to understand.

I assume you're using the club as a metaphor for the universe. — Manuel

No, no, a club. The International Brotherhood of Amateur Philosophers. That’s a thing that’s not me, but we can’t define my location relative to it. Or relative to 7. Or relative to ‘conformity’. Or relative to July 3rd, 1807.

the body becomes an essential component of the identity of here-ness we are trying to understand — Manuel

But not just as a body, but as my body, and only so long as I am a going concern. Once I’m dead, what you’ll call ‘his body’ doesn’t tell you where I am.

No, no, a club. The International Brotherhood of Amateur Philosophers. That’s a thing that’s not me, but we can’t define my location relative to it. Or relative to 7. Or relative to ‘conformity’. Or relative to July 3rd, 1807. — Srap Tasmaner

Not to the number 7 or conformity, we agree.

Hmmm. How far off is the International Brotherhood of philosophers from you? 1000 miles to the east, 200 kilometers to the west? There is a relation here.

As to July 3rd, 1807, you didn't exist, I assume. But go back far enough in (space)time, and we would find that date. I am closer to Tuesday than I am to Wednesday and quite far away from July 3rd, 1807.

But not just as a body, but as my body, and only so long as I am a going concern. Once I’m dead, what you’ll call ‘his body’ doesn’t tell you where I am. — Srap Tasmaner

Correct. So experience is crucial here and we don't know if experience could exist absent a body, which is spatio-temporally located somewhere.

How far off is the International Brotherhood of philosophers from you? — Manuel

If they have a building where they meet, that might also be called ‘the club’, so there’s some ambiguity there, but I meant the club as an abstraction, an organization to which human beings belong. I don’t belong to the building.

The point of the examples was that if you want to define ‘location’ in terms of some thing, it has to be a thing we think of as having a location, and that’s circular, and not in helpful way.

My hope was to start with a location that is special in some way, and ‘here’ is such a location. My thinking was, roughly, that here is where I encounter the rest of the cosmos, interact with it. Here is where the air I breathe is (even if it came from elsewhere in a tank), here and only here is where I can act (I can only act elsewhere through someone or something else), here is where my senses are operative (even if the light that reaches my eyes came from millions of light-years away), and so on. I intended to look at ‘here’ as something like the immediate environment of an organism, the realm in which things that are not me are available to me, to be used, encountered, wondered at, for me to take or destroy, and where I am available to such things, to be changed by them, to be helped or hindered. Here would be where things mean something to me.

And then the idea was to proceed from understanding what ‘here’ is to understanding other location terms like ‘there’, ‘elsewhere’, ‘where’, ‘somewhere’, and so on, on the basis of ‘here’. We never get to say that the universe is there, or elsewhere, right? We’re always within it, and we are always here, so the question — for me — was whether those ideas are the same, or related to each other, or what. For instance, some location words like “here” are flexible in their boundaries, and can encompass as little as my knee to as much as the whole universe.

Again, it’s easy enough to see why a question like “Where is the universe?” is ill-formed and unanswerable. But why is it so tempting, and can we approach the idea of location in such a way that we are not tempted to think of the universe as there, somewhere? It’s one of those perfect nine-year-old philosophy questions that we are too sophisticated to understand.

And where is this "everywhere" located? — Echoes

North of the north pole. :meh:

so the question — for me — was whether those ideas are the same, or related to each other, or what. For instance, some location words like “here” are flexible in their boundaries, and can encompass as little as my knee to as much as the whole universe. — Srap Tasmaner

These words - concepts really - have some overlap related to location, trivially. We have similar, though probably not exact, intuitions as to when here becomes a there. I have a rubber ball in my hand, it is here now as I am about to throw it, when does it become something which is no longer here?

Is it at the moment in which I no longer feel it in my hand? Or does it have to be on the floor for me to consider it over there? We decide, ultimately.

But why is it so tempting, and can we approach the idea of location in such a way that we are not tempted to think of the universe as there, somewhere? It’s one of those perfect nine-year-old philosophy questions that we are too sophisticated to understand. — Srap Tasmaner

I can only say that although I am a part of the universe, I can't be identical with it. If you want to use the word "universe" to refer to the Earth, and "here" specifically, you are free to do so and not wrong at that.

It may be that questions like these blur the borders between questions we can ask and questions which we can't ask, because we lack the capacity to articulate and understand them.