Brain in a Vat - Explained and Debated

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they will be looking into the brain in a vat thought experiment. Could our whole reality be a complete falsehood, and instead of the life and world we think we live in, we are instead just a brain in a vat and all our experiences are being controlled by a mad scientist. Watch as this sceptical theory is debated.

Get the Philosophy Vibe Metaphysics anthology book, available worldwide on Amazon:

0:00 - Introduction
0:41 - Brain in a vat explained
2:51 - Putnam's response (causal connection & incoherence)
6:25 - Problems with Putnam's argument
7:18 - Should be we sceptics?

[PhilosophyVibe]

Get the Philosophy Vibe Metaphysics anthology book, available worldwide on Amazon:

[crazycool]

Good to see John and George are still friends after so many contentious discussions.

[brentwebber]

The best philosophy channel on the internet. SO GLAD that you guys are back. Thanks the lord. Thank you.

[bsatyam]

Thank you for the existential crisis at 3 AM.

[DailyLifeSolution]

Ideas created in mind not referring to real world are just imagination. Brain in a vet is an imagination, like any imaginative story. The reason we put emphasis on possibility of its trueness is that we distrust the trueness of real world. Without any real reason to distrust the world, we distrust it and develop ideas born from imagination to support our distrust.

[AndyAlegria]

Thank you for bringing these sorts of videos back. I appreciate them. I'm surprised you went with Putnum's response since it is so weak. There isn't a stronger retort?

[idkay-ramen]

very convincing argument, i am on george's side. also this reminds me of a webcomic called EcopportunityX, there is a character in there who has been captured and their brain taken out and kept in a vat. it has some philosophical stuff abt ai (it ties in to the brain in a vat thing dw), although it focuses more on the horror aspect. i recommend it a lot

[samuelcharles]

Thank you for another fantastic video. I love this channel

[lawrencerosin]

Though it is extremely unlikely that we're all brains in a vat for the same simulation, but you're right we can't rule it out.

[cjortiz]

Even to say 'I am a body in our universe' leaves so many things out: the way we grow over time, our transient nature, a dissipative structure with boundaries that break down at the molecular level. Whether framed as 'brains in vats' or people in Laniakia, some hypothesized structures are more meaningful and effective in guiding our interactions with nature; even 'brains in vats' could still be reframed as only atoms in the void, but doesnt this ultimately ring hollow of meaning, knowing that with the right mental framework we can more effectively interact with nature?

[mpen]

Great work, this channel really challenges the average person understandings. 👍

[kredit]

The brain is already in a vat suspended in liquid inside the skull with indirect experience of the world through the senses.

[scoogsy]

I just love these videos. I wish you guys kept going for another hour! The whole thing seems really genuine and unscripted, even if it’s scripted.

Maybe everything is scripted? How would I know? How could I prove that in fact I haven’t been given a script to memorise and now I’m an actor in a grand play? 😂

[Yonel-ml]

rEALLY MISSED THESE ONES, WHAT TOOK YOU SO LONG

[BiDrd]

Here's another thought experiment in which it's not really conclusive that we can have any form of knowledge, whether absolute, or even partial knowledge. If there is not a base reality that grounds everything else, then it could be argued either way that perhaps we can have partial knowledge, not have any form of knowledge.

For example, if someone were to ask: "Are you sure This reality exists?"

The response could be: "I'm 90% sure"

A follow-up question could be: Are you sure that you're 90% sure?

The follow-up response could be: "I'm 90% sure that I'm 90% sure", and so on.

Each level of certainty that supports the surface level of certainty have 10% certainty subtracted from each level, which might potentially be able to divide all certainty into nothingness eventually.

However, if all levels of certainty remain at 90%, then it should imply that the surface level remains 90% because every degree of certainty underneath this does not eventually trinkle down to zero. So, the conclusion would be that it is 90%, correct? Shouldn't that be knowable as an absolute truth?

Or would we have to divide the surety of this conclusion as well down an infinite line of questioning? And is our surety concrete or is it arbitrary because we have decided to be "sure"?

That's why I would say that the only way to escape these issues is through our intuitions. It isn't only that are intuitions are telling us what can likely be the case, our intuitions are informing us of what is actually right, implying we already know it. If we can't know anything, the knowledge doesn't exist. However, knowledge does exist, therefore things can be known. It isn't the observation itself that can cause us to know things because all things can be questioned, which means the ability to know things is not purely an intellectual thing, it is *the condition of the heart which is made of free will choice to know it.*

Therefore, our intuitions do tell us what is true about reality.

Don't get me wrong, there are aspects of our intuitions that can be untrue and clouded by our biases, but there are levels of our intuitions that do inform us of what is correct and true In reality in which we already know that this external world exists.

However, in acknowledging that are intuitions do in fact in form of what is true, and also in light of the fact that we're also acknowledging that our intuitions can have bias lenses, then the bias lens would also explain our disagreement in subjective morality whereas Our acknowledgment that our intuitions are informing us that there are true and right perceptions of reality implies that are perceptions are telling us the truth that objective morality really does exist, and that we already know it does.

Since the existence of objective morality points to the existence of God, therefore, it implies God exists, and we already know it innately. However, since all things can be questioned, then us not knowing that God exists is due to our free will choice not to know it in opposition to our intuitions which inform us otherwise.

Morality is a system of value judgments, and the only thing that we observe value come from are "minds". Therefore, Objective morality which comes from a transcendent source points to a Transcendent Mind, God.

[gm]

This is a rehash of Rene Descarts' demon. He concluded that god would not play tricks on him like that.

My approach, which may not be better than any other and I accept could be worse.

If there is thinking, there is a cognition apparatus. If there is a cognition apparatus there is a mechanism to input stimuli for the cognition apparatus to experience. If there is stimuli there is something else that exists. If there is something that exists to be experienced and something to experience that other thing, then those are two subsets (experience provider and experience receiver) of a set of experiences. The cognition can not be certain that the inputs are accurate, and we must also consider that stored memories would be further input to cognition that may be faked. All we have are our memories and understandings based on those memories, so any altering of the basic abstractions a mind uses to perform cognition would render a mind incapable of holding a consistent understanding of anything. However the mind can conclude that some storeage does exist as there are memories held by the mind.

There is something to experience and something that experiences. (Is from an ought can not be proven) Does the something receiving the experience provide an experience to something else?

If cognition receives input of communication or interaction of another external cognition and experiences output of communication or interaction, then there must be other cognition or activity besides the mind considering its own cognition. (This requires differentiation between internal and external stimuli so I need to establish that in my argument for grounding the mind I will come back to this comment later).

[Danish-sc]

Make A Video On Best Books For A Beginner Of Philosophy
Try To Give Links Also
And Make Videos Regularly

[Jamric-grgr]

I would just be pragmatic and utilize the occam's razor. Why think we might be one of thousands of BIVs if we can just simply say that we live in the base ?

[musclemanny]

I think Descartes Demon is the best bet

[pauldirc..]

Great video
Please help me through this problem after reading Dr Robert sapolsky books behave and work of other neuroscientist like vs ramachandran I am fairly convinced that Free will and soul does not exist and it has givens me whole new level of existential crisis even when I turn atheist that does not to give me problem because reading stoicism and absurdism philosophy of albert camus give me that I can create my own meaning but after knowing the fact that I don't have free will how can I create meaning means I am the victim of law of Physics which navigate my life and I can't do anything like if I am miserable or lazy it is in my genes not my fault