Philo Essay - Brains in a Vat PDF

Preview

Summary

An essay on Chalmer's Brain in a Vat theory....

Description

The “Brain in a Vat” theory is a hypothesis that states that there is a possibility that you, or many others, could be a brain in a vat, instead of where you perceive yourself to be. You could believe that you have a specific body, appearance, location, and are performing a certain action. Instead, you in a vat inside a laboratory, controlled by a scientist. Both David Chalmers and Hilary Putnam have referred to this theory in their articles. They have analyzed its problems, and have contrasting points of view. Chalmers begins by explaining the concept of the Matrix Hypothesis which says: “I am envatted and always have been envatted” (Chalmers 406). He also states that future technology may become so advanced that the idea of a matrix is completely plausible. If you do not know that you’re envatted, then you do not know if anything that you’re doing is real. This will lead one to believe that the world is a hoax that all powerful beings control. This is a valid belief, yet envatted beings don’t have a skeptical viewpoint on their beliefs. Appearance is equal to reality so the envatted beings world is true, therefore making it true. Being envatted is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a skeptical hypothesis. It is a hypothesis about underlying reality. The matrix is a version of a three part metaphysical hypothesis: Physical processes are fundamentally computational, our cognitives are separate from physical process but interact with these processes, and things do exist, but different than from what we believed. Chalmers also explains the Creation Hypothesis, which states that, “physical spacetime and it’s contents were created by beings outside the space-time” (Chalmers 408). This idea is widely believed, even by people might not even realize that they believe it. Secondly, Chalmers explains the Computational Hypothesis. The Computational Hypothesis states that microphysical processes throughout spacetime are constituted by underlying computational processes. Due to this, physics as we know is not at the fundamental

level of our reality. Level of bits are governed by a computational algorithm at a higher level of which we think of as fundamental particles and forces. This theory is not widely believed, yet some scientists do take it seriously. If this theory is true, everything still exists, but it’s matter is different from what we originally thought. (Chalmers 409) To continue, Chalmers also brought up the Mind-Body Hypothesis, which explained that one’s mind is and always has been created by process outside physical space time. Descartes believed in something similar - we have nonphysical minds that interact with physical bodies, and one’s external beliefs remain the same. The combination of all of these beliefs is called the Combination Hypothesis. The Matrix hypothesis is equal to the Metaphysical Hypothesis because they imply each other. A being can think of life in the matrix as a creation myth for the information age, and can be brought up by the Mind-Body Hypothesis. There are many questions, such as questioning the existence of life after death, how minds and bodies interact, and how creators of the matrix and the size of reality may interfere. (Chalmers 412) In Hilary Putnam’s argument, she begins by explaining that one cannot illustrate or recognize something one has not seen or can recognize, even though others may find it recognizable. Putnam uses the analogy of the ant - “Suppose it produced the caricature intentionally. Then the line would have represented Churchill. On the other hand, suppose the line had the shape WINSTON CHURCHILL. And suppose this was just accident… Then the “printed shape” WINSTON CHURCHILL” would not have represented Churchill although that printed shape does represent Churchill when it occurs in almost any book today.” (Putnam 397) If sounds, pictures, and lines cannot represent anything, how is is it that thought forms can represent anything? In the past, some philosophers leaped from such thoughts to proof that the mind is essentially non- physical in nature.

No physical object can, in itself, refer to one thing rather than the other. However, thoughts in the mind to refer to one thing rather than the other. Thoughts and the mind are a different nature than objects. Thoughts come with intentions, and refer to something else - but no physical thing can have intentionality. Putnam begins to talk about the Magical Theories of Reference - the idea that knowing the true name of someone or something gives one power over said thing specified. Once someone realizes a name only has contingent, contextual, and conventional connection with its bearer, it becomes increasingly difficult to see why knowing the name should have any mystical significance. (Putnam 398) Mental representations have no more necessary connection with what they represent than physical representations do. Thought words and other mental pictures do not intrinsically represent what they are about. In the case of a brain in a vat, if a person attempts to raise their hand, the computer linked to the brain will make seem and feel as if they are doing so. In such a situation, the scientist can also manipulate the computer to create or obliterate memories. A persons nerve endings are supposed to be connected to the scientist’s super-computer to create an illustration, through varying programs. Putnam adds that, “When this sort of possibility is mentioned in a lecture on the Theory of Knowledge, the purpose, of course, is to raise the classical problem of scepticism with the to the external world in a modern way.” (Putnam 399400) The Earth, tree, and picture of a tree come into play in this scenario. A planet similar to Earth has never seen a tree before. A picture of a tree is dropped on it - for us, it is a tree, but for our counterparts, it cannot be a “tree” because they have never seen one. All brains have different verbalizations, and a brain uttering the phrase “I am a brain in a vat is self refuting”. Language spoken by vat brains is different from actual language, therefore is necessarily false.

With Putnam versus Chalmers, Putnam states that a brain cannot be self-aware of being in a vat, due to the idea being self-refuting. The being itself would not be able to perceive the image of the vat, therefore cannot think of being a brain in a vat. Chalmers’ idea states that beings could exist in a vat and have a form of self awareness, but it would not affect their well being or state. Things would continue to exist because they perceive them to exist. Therefore, their perceived life would continue without any form of interruption. In conclusion, Chalmers and Putnam both have reasonable, yet conflicting ideas. Chalmers has multiple hypothesis’, and each round back to the idea of mind and body, and how the idea of being a brain in a vat is not entirely derailing. Palmer states that a brain stating itself being a brain in a vat is self refuting, and could not happen due to multiple hypothesis’ and circumstances. Each stance is different yet plausible, and has reasonable circumstance to back their points up.

Works Cited

Chalmers, David J. “The Matrix as Metaphysics.” The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from Past and Present, edited by Tamar Gendler et al., Oxford University Press, 2008.

Putnam, Hilary. “Brains in a Vat.” The Elements of Philosophy: Readings from the Past and Present, edited by Tamar Szabo Gendler et al., 2008....