There are many different kinds of stances that philosophers can take, ranging as far as the many topics that are chosen to discuss and focus upon. The philosophy of skepticism has existed in varying forms since ancient Greece such as philosopher Gorgias the Nihilist who stated that nothing exists, even if something existed there was no way to know, even if we could know that it would be impossible to communicate it. In 1986, American philosopher John Pollock published a short two page story in “Contemporary Theories of Knowledge” introducing the philosophical topic of skepticism through the concept of being a brain in a vat. In this story, Mike is living a normal life until a man named Harry is taken by suspicious characters whereupon Mike discovers that there are a group of people transferring people’s brains into vats for science and that Mike was transferred months prior. Mike concludes the story by pondering the concept of reality.
“I am racked by the suspicion that I am really a brain in a vat and all this I see around me is just a figment of the computer. After all, how could I tell? If the computer program really works, no matter what I do, everything will seem normal. Maybe nothing I see is real. It’s driving me crazy. I’ve even considered checking into that clinic voluntarily and asking them to remove my brain just so that I can be sure.” (p.195)
Skeptics employ arguments such as this one to state that nothing can be known for certain because there is no way to test the reality that is perceived without relying upon the senses that said reality provides. Pollock is arguing here that there is no way to verify if reality is all a lie because he happens to be a brain in a vat or if reality is true so no conclusions can be drawn about anything; nothing can be truly known.
There is a lot to be said for the brain in a vat argument; mainly that it takes away the burden of proof. If you cannot trust or allow evidence of the physical world to be used as valid points of argumentation then the philosophical inquiry becomes ‘prove me wrong’ rather than ‘let me show you why I’m right’. This allows Pollock to operate from a stance of superiority because the argument redefines the rules: the senses deceive so any evidence to the contrary that relies on the senses will be ignored. In the argument Pollock presents in the story,
“The computer monitors the output of his motor cortex and provides input to the sensory cortex in such a way that everything appears perfectly normal to Harry. It produces a fictitious mental life so that he is unaware that anything has happened to him. He thinks he is shaving right now and getting ready to go to the office and stick it to another neurosurgeon. But actually, he’s just a brain in a vat.” (p.195)
Pollock outlines the extent to which disbelief can be wrought. Effectively, since so much sensory output comes from the brain, if the brain is deceived then all sensory data can be overwritten falsely. In a similar fashion, Descartes stated cogito ergo sum to conclude that from a skeptic’s perspective, the only information that can be rationalized to is ones own existence by process of being a thinking thing which for Pollock meant existing as a brain in a vat.
That said, the brain in a vat argument has some steep limitations to its realism. During encounters with other individuals, one can learn and process new information, expand upon previous knowledge, and discuss a multitude of viewpoints that would not have been considered prior to the conversation. Carefully detailed surprises and experiments that give unexpected or unknown results are examples of information in the world that is outside of the self. The type of mechanism required to create enough sensory data to operate the brain in a vat such that the brain itself would not be able to notice the inconsistencies would require a matrix system larger than the ones used to encrypt the internet. The efforts that would be necessary to make this happen are exorbitant, raising the question: why was the brain not given sensory data in order to stimulate a depressive state so that the details would not be as relevant or noticed; creating a system that could afford to be a lot smaller and have an insignificant realm of influence? While the senses may deceive so that everything experienced could indeed be a falsification, logic remains as true thus consequences that are deemed unsupported and unlikely do not necessarily need to be proven wrong to be dismissed. While the brain in a vat scenario attempts to put the burden of proof on falsifying the claim, reasoning through complex examples and the structure therein that would require such a scenario to be likely scopes enough of the constraints to argue its opposition. In the passage, Pollock writes,
“I’ll bet you think we’re going to operate on you and remove your brain just like we removed Harry’s, don’t you? But you have nothing to worry about. We’re not going to remove your brain. We already did—three months ago!” (p.195)
If the brain in a vat scenario were likely, then the mechanism keeping the brain falsely stimulated should have enough self preservation to make it impossible for the brain to question its reality in a vat; in the story the protagonist is told of the situation and sees it unfold firsthand which would be counter productive and harmful to the science experiment by allowing the thought to occur because the secret of the reality could be unearthed.
The concept of existing as a brain in a vat is often gone to for an example of a skepticism because it demonstrates a simplistic scenario presenting a reason to doubt what is seen and perceived as reality. That being stated, if it impossible to distinguish the difference between reality and being a brain in a vat, then the argument holds no weight because there is no significance to outcome; life will be lived as perceived, the brain cannot be released by ones own devices, the question under consideration cannot be tested nor verified. As such, this argument is not a good example for skepticism.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Feinberg, Joel and Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Reason and Responsibility.” Cengage Learning 2015: pages 193-195. Print.
