Brains in vats and skepticism
May 10th 2007 14:49
This kind of Radical Skepticism which causes people to lie awake at night, worried that they might be brains in vats is totally ridiculous. Here's my understanding of Husserl's critique of what happens when we use a naturalistic way of thinking to reflect on ourselves.
The naturalistic view is that our senses receive information from the objective external world. They then send that information to the area of the brain where the information can be processed and understood and used to form beliefs. Coupled with some desire, these beliefs cause us to form some intention, which causes ue to act in the external world, giving us the ability to alter the external world, thus the cycle continues. Everything from perception to intention takes place in the internal, subjective world.
To put it another way, the eye sees the world and it takes that information (somehow purely!) and translates it into a language that 'we' speak and gives us that information. (this is misleading because information is that language, so perhaps i should say "the eye interacts with reality and translates that into information"). So our eye is like some kind of good samaritan which has decided to take on this selfless job that nobody ever asked it to do, this job of interacting with the world for us and conveniently translating that for us.
Only now the skeptic isn't happy with the eye. who ever entrusted our epistemic gateway to these eyes? How do they know we have to have our world translated for us? Why won't they let us "interact" with "real" reality? Those do-gooder senses of ours are robbing us the right to freely concieve of the universe, build our metaphysics, understand the world as it is! (conceive, build, understand, Idiots!)
I think this view is ridiculous, it is totally incoherent to cenceive of perception, "reality", personal identity in these ways. However, even if i did subscribe to this view, i would not wallow in the pity of the skeptical conundra that my wretched senses and their unrequested decision to stand as my intermediary, i would not ask what it would be like had they not assumed that role. I would thank my eyes, trust their better judgement and translating light for me. The view I have of the world is freakin awesome, detailed and complex. meaningful. Multifaceted. Artistic. I mean, great job eyes, I really like what you've done with the place. You guys ought to be proud of yourselves!
And they cry that their eyes have imprisonned them to a world where they might turn out to be brains in vats, fooled and meddled with by a malevolent demon. But this demon by definition is not malevolent. Thank you demon, you seem more like laplace's demon, how do you hold and integrate all that information? This demon is doing you the favour of gathering that all that information about every single one of the 10^80 atoms in the known universe and processing it so that on the off chance should you swing your casual glance away from your crotch for just a second he can give you the info about what its like. You get pissed at the demon for taking huge breaks between "stuff": "why is there so much nothing you lazy bitch?"..."Do particles still exist when nothing is interacting with them?"..."what do you mean you haven't created any data about that?" Now who is malevolent? the sunset rendering, nebula forming, DNA wrapping, demon that's putting on this show for a uncheery skeptical audience? or the arsehole subject for whom that is not only not good enough, but he labels the demon evil for doing it?
Well might the skeptic conclude "I think therefore I am" for in no uncertain terms they have dreamed up their own existence, the skeptic is not just and insolent brat for whom nothing is good enough, he is more on the scale of malevolant demon.
By taking the naturalistic view you have already presupposed you are a brain in a vat. You have presupposed that you are a man in a tower. You have defined your "self" as a brain in a vat, fed information by a malevolent demon called your senses.
The skeptic is not happy because they feel they are missing out on something. If the skeptic were a brain in a vat they would hope that their god would slay that demon, so they can leap forth from that vat and experience the world for real, which probably just consists of the skeptic, (which is just a brain), banging his brain (which is the skeptic) against what ever it is that is "out there". Is that what they want? Not to interact with the world through the senses, but directly somehow?
No thank you, if i were a brain in a vat I would gladly stay put.
The naturalistic view is that our senses receive information from the objective external world. They then send that information to the area of the brain where the information can be processed and understood and used to form beliefs. Coupled with some desire, these beliefs cause us to form some intention, which causes ue to act in the external world, giving us the ability to alter the external world, thus the cycle continues. Everything from perception to intention takes place in the internal, subjective world.
To put it another way, the eye sees the world and it takes that information (somehow purely!) and translates it into a language that 'we' speak and gives us that information. (this is misleading because information is that language, so perhaps i should say "the eye interacts with reality and translates that into information"). So our eye is like some kind of good samaritan which has decided to take on this selfless job that nobody ever asked it to do, this job of interacting with the world for us and conveniently translating that for us.
Only now the skeptic isn't happy with the eye. who ever entrusted our epistemic gateway to these eyes? How do they know we have to have our world translated for us? Why won't they let us "interact" with "real" reality? Those do-gooder senses of ours are robbing us the right to freely concieve of the universe, build our metaphysics, understand the world as it is! (conceive, build, understand, Idiots!)
I think this view is ridiculous, it is totally incoherent to cenceive of perception, "reality", personal identity in these ways. However, even if i did subscribe to this view, i would not wallow in the pity of the skeptical conundra that my wretched senses and their unrequested decision to stand as my intermediary, i would not ask what it would be like had they not assumed that role. I would thank my eyes, trust their better judgement and translating light for me. The view I have of the world is freakin awesome, detailed and complex. meaningful. Multifaceted. Artistic. I mean, great job eyes, I really like what you've done with the place. You guys ought to be proud of yourselves!
And they cry that their eyes have imprisonned them to a world where they might turn out to be brains in vats, fooled and meddled with by a malevolent demon. But this demon by definition is not malevolent. Thank you demon, you seem more like laplace's demon, how do you hold and integrate all that information? This demon is doing you the favour of gathering that all that information about every single one of the 10^80 atoms in the known universe and processing it so that on the off chance should you swing your casual glance away from your crotch for just a second he can give you the info about what its like. You get pissed at the demon for taking huge breaks between "stuff": "why is there so much nothing you lazy bitch?"..."Do particles still exist when nothing is interacting with them?"..."what do you mean you haven't created any data about that?" Now who is malevolent? the sunset rendering, nebula forming, DNA wrapping, demon that's putting on this show for a uncheery skeptical audience? or the arsehole subject for whom that is not only not good enough, but he labels the demon evil for doing it?
Well might the skeptic conclude "I think therefore I am" for in no uncertain terms they have dreamed up their own existence, the skeptic is not just and insolent brat for whom nothing is good enough, he is more on the scale of malevolant demon.
By taking the naturalistic view you have already presupposed you are a brain in a vat. You have presupposed that you are a man in a tower. You have defined your "self" as a brain in a vat, fed information by a malevolent demon called your senses.
The skeptic is not happy because they feel they are missing out on something. If the skeptic were a brain in a vat they would hope that their god would slay that demon, so they can leap forth from that vat and experience the world for real, which probably just consists of the skeptic, (which is just a brain), banging his brain (which is the skeptic) against what ever it is that is "out there". Is that what they want? Not to interact with the world through the senses, but directly somehow?
No thank you, if i were a brain in a vat I would gladly stay put.
| 15 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
