PWIP 39

Epistemology

The problem the epistemology has with ontology is skepticism. If something is real and exist it can be considered true. The skeptic calls into question the nature of reality. Let us see what something like an exhaustive denial of the devices used to perceive reality looks like. First, it would appear that there must be something real for the skeptic not to fall into absolute ignorance or nihilism. The goal of the skeptic ought to be the truth, not doubt for the end of deception. The awareness of one’s own limitations helps in producing a more accurate orientation in ontology.

The brain in a vat problem is an observation from the skeptic concerning our relationship to the world. The skeptic comes in degrees, being completely against the world’s existence; to partially against the world; to assuming only the world exists. If the world completely doesn’t exist and only the self exists, then we fall into solipsism. If the world is one mind that appears to be many, then idealism appears to be the case. Since the brain in a vat thought experiment uses technology, it makes assumptions about an existing world. The manufactured world of the brain that is in the vat would be equivalent to art or entertainment. Even if it was being used for scientific means, a simulation is an imitation of a thing. The skeptic’s suspicion as to the nature of the world seems to be a consequence of science’s discovery of the brain organ’s limits.

Skeptics seem to think the mind and body hide the truth from the consciousness. It is comparable to those who believe the true essence of the homo sapien is an immaterial soul. Some portion of these individuals see the body as an obstacle to reality. However, the body doesn’t will itself into existence. It is manifested in the world as parts of the world combine to result in what we call ourselves. What about the body fills the skeptic with caution? Though there may be more, we can look at the limits of the senses, the emotion’s effects on rationality, and mental illness. Hearing and seeing have limits on their extent and resolution. Science tells us the eyes are deceiving because they can’t see all the spectrums of light. There’s much weight placed on the visual sense as the main arbiter of truth. This appears contrary to science which confirms its theories by being correct on a prediction. There’s nothing in science that necessitates vision. Geometric ideas can be understood as abstractions or symbols. Our sense of smell and taste can be affected by our moods, the physical relationship between our structure and objects in the world, and the context the self and object are placed in. Our sense of touch appears to tie every other sense together, in that signals need to touch our sense organs to be observed, or the brain needs to generate motions that are equivalent to sense organs being acted upon or touched.

The skeptic may say, at some point, that pleasure and pain are wholly products of the mind. Emotions can have such a large impact on one’s mind that one may be led away from actions one knows are more rational than the ones being taken. This again brings up the hard problem of consciousness, as a robot need not have feelings of this kind of conflict. One may ask if a robot without the feeling would still act as one with the feeling? It does appear that one with the feeling of being alive is of more value than a philosophical zombie, i.e. one who merely acts like they have feelings but don’t actually possess any. However, a philosophical zombie may still prove themself to possess ethical value, e.g. showing their desire to exist, their susceptibility to damage, their gains and losses, etc. The skeptic seems to show feelings both should not exist and are deceptive.

The skeptic may appeal to something like profound schizophrenia and claim no way to know if perceived events are true events. Not only are the senses limited but the biological material may also produce maladaptive brain structures. In this, the hard problem would need to go further than just asking why qualia exist and ask why is it deceptive? Either the maladaptations are accidental and randomly placed, or the biological material generates beings with an intention on the outcomes, or the brain is intentionally deceiving the consciousness, or there is a brain in a vat like situation with greater authority in control of one’s experiences. Beyond this disrupting our ability to perceive true reality, it may also cause one to act in a way that influences the acts of others.

To deny the other the skeptic must also deny history. Like our eyesight, our reasoning has a limit on its extent. Physics can only take us so far back in the past or forward in the future. If we are brains in vats, then the study of nature is the study of a piece of art or entertainment. This would make others unreal objects, but then the truth of one’s world would be solipsism with the World being beyond all of one’s devices, unless an individual in the World cares to communicate truth to the one in the artificial world. The next problem is local evolution. Homo sapiens are multicellular organisms that multiplied from a single cell made from the combination of two cells. These cells themselves are made from chemicals combined in a particular way. This fact is gotten from others, being that it can’t be observed by the self as the self goes through the process of birth. Assuming the other is real and we are in the World, we may all be suffering from the same hallucinations. Others may have different experiences from what was thought to be the same content. Combining the deception of the senses, the unreliability of rationality, and the perplexity of mental illness the skeptic claims the world hasn’t been parsed. If the skeptic falls into idealism, they may say that freeing one’s self from the body will return one to the greater mind that may know the Truth.

There is a limit on knowledge that results from our physical limitations. Complex ideas don’t appear innate to the mind but must be learned. Language appears to go beyond physical limits. Though concepts like a square circle or the wave/particle duality are difficult to recreate as a visual imitation, they can still be instantiated as linguistic objects which correlate with real or impossible existence. Falsehood much like nonexistence has a paradoxical relationship with existence. Again, the skeptic ought to assume some truth is possible, or they would fall into total ignorance. This truth ought to be communicable, since symbols appear to be able to hold abstractions, and the world (assuming it is real) should be less abstract than the totality of what abstraction can contain. Scientists rely on technical tools and language made specifically for understanding particular parts of reality. Thus senses are replaced with technology and intuition replaced with formulas. From these, we attempt to see the world in a form untainted by the mind. Technology with its ability to process and analyze data with more precision than a brain makes it a good candidate for understanding the World. An automaton could make an actual representation of the World, rather than a deceptive semblance of it. Of course, how could one build a robot that can perceive the World if one can’t perceive the World oneself? Beyond this problem, science must still admit limitations because there are predictions that are difficult to make. One may not know what truth the skeptic will allow, but they must allow something given the data.