Mind-bending "brain In Vat" Concept

[ArabiaNytes]

One of the most important approaches to understanding psychology is to be able to think outside the box on mystifying questions that may seem so obvious to our reality, but are not fully concluded upon with concrete evidence.  Keeping an open-mind in embracing skepticism is how we are able to consider all the alternatives while filtering out the misleading concepts in order to seek the best possible truths that are backed by the best possible logistical reasonings. The concept of “Brain In Vat” (BIV) is one of those riddles that keep the window of skepticism propped open to exercise the mind, for “In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt, as far as possible, of all things.” (René Descartes)

Descartes concludes his theory on existence and its nature through his syllogistic inference, (although he denied it being so while conceding, still, that there needed to be an extra premise for this theory) that because “I think, therefore I am”. His idea was based on the premise that if thoughts are conceived by the mind, and the owner of those thoughts is aware and present to acknowledge those thoughts, then those thoughts existed for the moment they were thought of, therefore suggesting that the one observing those thoughts had to exist in order to observe them. The extra premise missing from his justifications is in clarifying “Whatever has the property of thinking, exists”. This calls on the question of perception. If I perceive something to exist, it is because I thought it to be true and because I think, then I exist; but what perceives my existence? The perceiver cannot perceive himself, so does this mean that if I am not perceived to exist, then I don’t exist? The senses of perception are the only true ways of knowing our existence in our reality, and thinking occurs following the perception of senses through stimulation.  If we were to image that our brains were hooked up to a computer that simulated our reality through stimulation of our biological sensations, how would a tangible device detect the intangible conception of cognitive thinking that is not identified by any known sensory detector? The difference between a computer and an intellectual organism is our very ability to think, which is defined as “[having] a particular opinion, belief, or idea about someone or something”. A computer cannot have an opinion or a belief for it is unable to generate afeeling. The matrix seems to allude that the human race had advanced so far into the future that the creation of simulating artificial intelligence (AI) had been invented, so I can see the argument going down the road of posing the conspiracy that through use of such an invention, the human race is envatted in a reality where such an invention does not and could not exist. Thus, leading to assume that if AI does not exist in our reality, then we cannot “break the matrix” but exposing the truth of our artificial reality. Consider that if we are captives of such an advanced intelligence that procured the ability to create a virtual reality too real to doubt because the laws of physics stand to deflect such doubts, then the act of doubting against these laws would have to be made impossible. As human beings, we created the Scientific Method because it is of our nature to question what is unknown and then move to exposing the truths to explain what becomes known. If those who “created the matrix” wanted to hold us as prisoners, then why feed into our ability to reason and progress with knowledge by making the very option of thinking of “breaking the matrix” possible? Simply put, if they are so smart to create something so incredible as a virtual reality, why would they not make it impossible to question this virtual reality? Because, as we all know, what makes us human is the ability to conceptualize and invent and progress in uncovering the unknown in the ultimate quest in betterment of living. If they didn't want us to “break the matrix” and free ourselves from their greedy and selfish agenda, then they wouldn't allow us to invest any thought on the idea to begin with in fear of us figuring them out.

Furthermore, the idea that we are living in the matrix closes the door on believing that life has no meaning, that we are simply serving as a life-force to generate a larger system. If that were the case, then what is the point of being intelligent in the first place? Animals are a life force but are not intelligent. Would this mean that having intelligence creates a stronger life force? Now we are calling to question an abstract thought of “life forces”, an unsubstantiated imaginary label on something we are nowhere near in solidifying an actual platform of understanding. As you can see, the road to believing that we are in a matrix leads down a silly and unprecedented train of thoughts going to the land of nowhere.

***************************************

 

[askdfjnak]

On 4/7/2016 at 1:43 PM, ArabiaNytes said:

“In order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life to doubt, as far as possible, of all things.” (René Descartes)

I like this. The problem is where he says "as far as possible". This supposes that doubt has a limit, doubt only needs a limit if you intend to continue thought. To obtain perfect truth, one must be perfectly skeptical. Perfect skepticism is silence.

Absolute skepticism is an algorithm that produces absolute silence.

Human weakness is the tendency to formulate base assumptions and then apply partial skepticism to knowledge and those assumptions, allowing them to create endless strings of thoughts from different combinations of data gathered through sensory input.

If a machine wanted to trap a human, all they would have to do is provide stimulus for thought. The human process of thinking to obtain truth would become the trap.

On 4/7/2016 at 1:43 PM, ArabiaNytes said:

“I think, therefore I am”

I think, therefore there are thoughts.

I am, therefore I am.

On 4/7/2016 at 1:43 PM, ArabiaNytes said:

The perceiver cannot perceive himself

Not as object, but as subject the perceiver can perceive himself.

Since all object perceptions are also subject, the perceiver can simultaneously recognize his existence in all that is subjectively perceived, and his non-existence in all that is objectively perceived.

[Flower]

@Mutupo

 

Interestingly, when Descartes says 'I think therefore I am' , Yes it makes sense that since I am thinking, I must be in order to be thinking in the first place... BUT this tells us nothing about the nature of the 'I' that does in fact exist. 

Thoughts on this?

[askdfjnak]

@Flower

The true nature of the "I" is independent of thought. (I think)

So, "I" have no idea what the "I" is.