Neo's Dream

[Zoid]

In another thread ("Dependent-Arising"), I suggested the possibility that we may live in a totally artificial/virtual world, like that of the film The Matrix... The old "Brain in the Jar" concept! Is there any way we can know or even be reasonably sure that we don't?

:twoguns:

(PS. I must mention, at this juncture, that I have, on other forums, been "told off" for starting too many new topics... Please stop me if this becomes the case! :) )

[scameter]

No. Is all we can know for sure, I believe, is that we are individuals with our own identities. If not, we wouldn't exist in any form at all, or to the bounds of that which can be conceived or imagined or anything at all that could be. Although, I personally believe there is more we can be assured of, such as that there is more to this life such as meaning and that we are capable of experiencing it and that that is one reason we're here, but to proclaim such, I think, we currently break the bounds of this topic currently set in. But, to answer your question plainly: no. We can only know that we are individual identities.

[Taeguk]

Hi Zoid! :)

You asked:

The Matrix... The old "Brain in the Jar" concept! Is there any way we can know or even be reasonably sure that we don't?

Classic question!

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "artificial world"! :lol:

If you mean, "do you think we are all literally a bunch of brains in vats?" I would say: No, no, no, no, & no. :)

We don't need to be mathematically certain of things in order to "know" them! Nobody lives their life constantly calculating mathematical proofs before getting out of bed in the morning! I'd argue that there are different forms of knowledge, and that while mathematical knowledge is more "certain" than other forms of knowledge, it doesn't follow we should then try to turn everything into a mathematical equation so we can be mathematically certain of it. Science certainly doesn't work that way; why should philosophy? Can you mathematically prove that the theory of evolution is "true"?

This doesn't mean we should blindly trust our senses, but that they're generally a lot more reliable in giving us information about the actually existing world we inhabit then a bunch of abstract logical forumulations, including the logical possibility that we're all brains in vats!

Although, if you want a logical proof, hmmm...let's see....

The skeptic claims that I (x) don't knowif I'm a brain in a vat (y), so I don't know if there is an external world (z):

X doesn't know that not-y

If X doesn't know that not-y, then X doesn't know z

Ergo, X doesn't know z

To which I would respond, I (x) do know there is an external world!

X knows z

If X doesn't know not-y, then x doesn't know z

But x does know z!

Therefore, x knows that not-y

I think an analytic philosopher called George Moore was the first one to forumulate this logical response. :) But again, notice that the initial premise is based on the very fact that we don't need to have a mathematical proof to have knowledge!

To continue with the notion of an "aritificial world":

I would suggest, though, that there are more ways of being in an "artificial world" than being a brain in a vat!

Being immersed in the "human world" of politics, entertainment, fashion, trends, consumerism----is this the "real world"?

Identifying with every thought, emotion, sensation you encounter---is this the "real" world?

Getting caught up in logical dispute, and argument; thinking you can map out the entire world, while neglecting your own life outside of logical disputation---is this the "real" world?

People often criticize monks for "running away from the real world".

But As a Buddhist monk once said to me,

"Here in the monastery, we haven't removed oursleves from the "real" world. We've removed all the distractions."*

People might not be brains in vats, but that hardly means they live in "the real world"! :lol:





*(and no, you don't have to be in a monastery, or even be Buddhist, in order to experience this! And you can live in a monastery and still be distracted)

[schrodinger]

If we are going to retrogress with this question, why stop with a brain, and who needs a vat? Why not continue on back until each of us is just a thought, then all of us are in single thought? Then the question becomes who is doing the thinking? And that gets you into the question of God, and if we are “only” thoughts in the mind of God. Now, instead of retrogressing, we progress and look at the big picture such as “where did this vast universe and all that is in it come from”, we find ourselves right back in the same place! :duh:
Are we just clever hamsters, racing inside the spinning wheel, going nowhere, for God’s amusement? Maybe when Man releases the hamster, he will be released as well? :holy: