Are we inside the Matrix?

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

This thread is basically a spin-off from a discussion with brimstoneSalad in my introduction thread. I want to discuss the question: should we trust our personal experiences?

In my introductory thread the suggestion was raised that a person that experiences communication with and feelings from (a) g/God has no way to distinguish between such an experience coming only from within the brain, and it actually being caused by an outside source. This I think has to be true, there's no definite way to establish the difference. But the same can be said for being certain you have a physical body. There is no way to distinguish between having an actual physical body and being a brain in a vat linked to a supercomputer, being deceived by a malign genie (á la Descartes), or being inside the Matrix as in the movie. We are naturally inclined to believe our experiences are real, unless we have good reason not to. So unless anyone thinks we are actually in a Matrix-like contrapment, what is the reason to think our bodies are real - besides a philosophical preference?

[miniboes]

I would like it if we were in some matrix-like thing, because that gives a pretty real opportunity for life after death.

Anyway, even if we were in a vat, it wouldn't really matter. Think of playing video games; they often work way different than our world, yet internally that can make sense and we can make decisions within that frame. We don't really need to answer this question at all.

[brimstoneSalad]

You claimed your experiences were evidence, and I explained why they are not.

However, I wouldn't say there's no way to tell where they're coming from. We can determine through logical reasoning that this god doesn't exist, so by process of elimination that at least narrows down the possibilities.
Now, maybe an alien is beaming waves into our brains and stimulating these emotions, but that is a far cry from the god proposed. To that I could at least be technically "agnostic" (although I don't like to see the word used in this way), but the mere "possibility" is not itself evidence.

The only evidence we actually have strongly suggests an immediate material cause. Anything else is unnecessary and simply complicates the model without increasing explanatory power.

You can be uncertain of where they come from, at least to the degree experimentation permits, but beyond that you don't have evidence.

As to us being a brain in a vat, as miniboes said, it doesn't really matter if we are or aren't.
We should accept science as the most reliable way of knowing reality possible, and beyond that we should aim to be good people in so far as there is a very substantial probability that the world is real, and a moral person is cautious.

If you like, a decision theory table (which doesn't belong to Pascal, his wager is irrational):

decisiontheorytable1.jpg

It's important to understand what is meant by "reliably good", and why arbitrary faith based action is "mostly bad".

It's hard to do good. The world is a chaotic place. You may be served by learning about entropy.

Yes, randomly shooting into a crowd could do good. You might accidentally shoot a serial rapist, and miss all other people. But the laws of probability suggest this kind of outcome is extremely unlikely. It will happen occasionally, but for the most part the outcome will be bad. This is why I say "mostly bad", it's chaos, there is a little accidental good in there.

You have to understand, even if your faith caused you to do good, that is not the norm. For every decent and morality promoting faith, there are more that promote moral apathy and complacency through vicarious redemption, or even war and terrorism.
Your faith is not intellectually special. It does not have more evidence. You randomly arrived at it. You got lucky in not being a monster. You're that one random shot that hit the serial rapist in the crowd instead of the mother of three who volunteers at the animal sanctuary on weekends standing beside him.

Only through science -- being guided in our actions by reliable knowledge -- can we reliably do good in the world (if the world is real; which I can present a strong argument for, but which should be unnecessary given that it's the right thing to do either way).

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

As to us being a brain in a vat, as miniboes said, it doesn't really matter if we are or aren't.

I don't believe for a second you feel it doesn't really matter to you personally. From a model-perspective it doesn't matter, except that the brain in a vat model is more complicated and so we say a realist model is better. From a model-perspective it doesn't matter, but that doesn't mean you don't care about the truth personally. And I don't believe you ascribe a 50/50 chance to both models. I think almost everyone is convinced beyond 90% that the Matrix isn't true, and that we're not brains in a vat. So what is this ascription of likelihood based on? It's not based on scientific evidence, yet it is evident to most people that we're not brains in a vat.

You claimed your experiences were evidence, and I explained why they are not.

However, I wouldn't say there's no way to tell where they're coming from. We can determine through logical reasoning that this god doesn't exist, so by process of elimination that at least narrows down the possibilities.
Now, maybe an alien is beaming waves into our brains and stimulating these emotions, but that is a far cry from the god proposed. To that I could at least be technically "agnostic" (although I don't like to see the word used in this way), but the mere "possibility" is not itself evidence.

The only evidence we actually have strongly suggests an immediate material cause. Anything else is unnecessary and simply complicates the model without increasing explanatory power.

You can be uncertain of where they come from, at least to the degree experimentation permits, but beyond that you don't have evidence.

Well I don't see you've disproved 'this god' through logic, but I'll get back to that thread. I see that my experiences aren't scientific evidence, however they do make it evident to me.
How this differs from another person that believes something else (Islam, Christianity) and sees the truth of that as evident, I think spirit people influence the people on earth in various religions. Many of them experience bits of Gods Love, and many experience spirit influence to stay in the beliefs, and even do terrible things. Once you've received just a bit of Gods Love, you already have a softened heart and are much less likely to commit violence or social exclusion or stuff like that.

I'd say the experiences the people have in these religions are real, but the content of the beliefs associated with the experiences, is unjustifiedly assumed.

To interpret experiencing Gods Love as actually coming from something outside of me, instead of just from the brain, is based on a number of things: 1)The similarity between the abundant splendor of nature and the abundant feeling of love,

2) the fact that the experience is an emotion that is triggered by directing an emotion of longing to something greater(that appears to be) outside of myself, a creator,

3) that I see events occur in my life, after dealing with certain emotions while in this process of receiving/praying, that reflect my changed emotional condition. As an example of the latter, I was actively dealing with my sexual history, writing it down, and praying about it, crying really deeply about how my self worth is dependant on attention from women, how I've never had a fulfilling relationship, and a few days afterwards, I meet a girl that has particular sexual/emotional injuries, that give me an opportunity to discover my sexual feelings and talk to her about it. My desire (prayer) to become a loving person, sexually, is answered by an opportunity to grow. I know to an outsider this can be brushed off as confirmation bias, but I can't properly verbally transmit the salience of the whole experience here.

The whole releasing emotions/law of attraction/praying thing, is too connected/coherent and works too well in my life for me to move towards a belief of "it's all in the brain". I don't really want to either. I think I have enough reason to assume a model with a source behind the material phenomena, even though those reasons can't be classified as scientific evidence.

In terms of having hit the lottery of unjustified beliefs, I can see why you would see it that way. But the belief system also gives me some ways to explain the beliefs of muslims and christians and hindus. I think if more people would have the humility (the desire to experience all their emotions, including fears/ false beliefs) they would come to the conclusion that they don't know what they think they know, and that some of their beliefs are unjustified. So it's not about hitting a lottery between "sets of beliefs" it's about willing to be wrong. In other words it's about humility.

[AlexanderVeganTheist]

[...] I don't really want to either.
[...] it's about willing to be wrong.

In case I haven't clearly done so: I admit that the entirety of my experiences of God could have just been caused in my brain. I admit that there's a possibility there's no god. However the way I believe in God, is the same way most people believe we're not brains in a vat.

[brimstoneSalad]

From a model-perspective it doesn't matter, except that the brain in a vat model is more complicated and so we say a realist model is better. From a model-perspective it doesn't matter

You misunderstand. I'm not even talking about a model perspective, I'm talking about a moral perspective.

but that doesn't mean you don't care about the truth personally.

I care about truth more than you could understand. Truth is what matters -- because it is of moral consequence. Morality is what matters above all else, and truth matters because morality matters.
If there is no honest means of determining truth -- such as in a nefarious thought experiment where we are either deluded by technology by being a brain in a vat, or malevolent spirits or gods to trick us -- then it doesn't matter: being moral, we should behave in such a way as we would if truth were real and there were an honest means to discern it (i.e. science), because truth still might be real for all we know.

See the decision theory table I attached to the last message.
It is the precautionary principle -- an actually valid one, from a moral perspective, unlike Pascal's.
The difference being that mine is exhaustive and deals in moral action, not petty fear-mongering.

Because we have no control over this advanced technology holding us in dreams, or these evil gods, it's not something we really need to worry or fret about. There is no means to discern its reality if you assume things like that, so it shouldn't matter to us, being outside the scope of things we can honestly know. Instead, what should matter is science -- the only honest knowledge (the only truth) we can possibly have. If there are evil beings denying us the legitimacy of that truth, then that is on them, those are their evil deeds, not ours; we are still acting morally with the only knowledge we have by believing science.

And I don't believe you ascribe a 50/50 chance to both models.

I never said I did. I said it doesn't matter. And I'm not even talking about models here.
It doesn't matter what "chance" I ascribe to each model, but FYI, any truly possible model (not just a model that we, in ignorance, imagine to be "possible") has a 100% chance of being simultaneously real. Look into superposition.

I think almost everyone is convinced beyond 90% that the Matrix isn't true, and that we're not brains in a vat.

1%, 99%, it's irrelevant.
In any case, if we are to be MORAL, we must believe that the Matrix isn't true within our decision framework unless or until we have objective scientific evidence of it.
It is a moral prerogative to believe truth, which can only be revealed by science and logic (through objective methods). If science is false, then we have no empirical truth and it wouldn't matter either way (no truth, no means by which to reliably engage in moral action in the context of truth), but because we have no empirical evidence to prove that, we should believe the only the possible empirical truth we have access to (by denying the Matrix, or these evil trickster gods, and accepting science).

So what is this ascription of likelihood based on? It's not based on scientific evidence, yet it is evident to most people that we're not brains in a vat.

There is no ascription of likelihood. And it shouldn't be evident -- or at least not superficially. Less superficially, quantum physics does have something to say about the reality of all true possibilities.

The important point is that it's morally necessary to reject evil deceptive meaningless universes, in order to act in such a way as is compatible with any possible real and honest universe we may be in (exclusively, or simultaneously).

I see that my experiences aren't scientific evidence, however they do make it evident to me.
How this differs from another person that believes something else (Islam, Christianity) and sees the truth of that as evident, I think spirit people influence the people on earth in various religions. Many of them experience bits of Gods Love, and many experience spirit influence to stay in the beliefs, and even do terrible things.

They shouldn't make it evident to you; you are falling victim to your own biases.
You didn't answer how this makes you different.
Muslims say the same thing. There are Djinn, shaytan, and they corrupt and mislead people into other religions.

So, what's different in your thought process?
I'm looking for actual logic and reasoning, not for you to make up more ad hoc excuses, which is exactly what other religions do. You're not thinking any differently.

And to be clear, your methods of proposing these ad hoc reasons -- inventing deceptive spirits and believing in them -- is an equal moral failing in regard to our prerogative to seek truth.

Once you've received just a bit of Gods Love, you already have a softened heart and are much less likely to commit violence or social exclusion or stuff like that.

An extremist Muslim can say once you have felt true love from god, you will have a strengthened heart and feel the righteous anger against those evil people who reject it, and feel empowered to commit violence where once you might have had doubt.

You can make up anything you want. Show me how your thought process is different. Making up ad hoc metaphysics is not different.
Can you not understand how what you're doing -- your thought process -- is the same?
You're condoning their irrationality by practicing it yourself.

I'd say the experiences the people have in these religions are real, but the content of the beliefs associated with the experiences, is unjustifiedly assumed.

That's exactly what you're doing -- making all kinds of unjustified assumptions.

The first one is that the experience was coming from outside of yourself.
You also assume it's a creator god, and a number of metaphysical claims that are entirely unjustified by reason or logic.

You've fallen into the same trap as any Islamic fundamentalist, who just makes different unjustified assumptions from you based on his or her experiences.

To interpret experiencing Gods Love as actually coming from something outside of me, instead of just from the brain, is based on a number of things: 1)The similarity between the abundant splendor of nature and the abundant feeling of love,

This, again, is just your feeling. This is not justification. It's the same thing any extremist Islamist may do.

2) the fact that the experience is an emotion that is triggered by directing an emotion of longing to something greater(that appears to be) outside of myself, a creator,

Again, just a feeling. This is not reasoning, you're just making things up.
And Muslims will say the same thing; that they payed to Allah based on the Qur'an and the Hadith and then got the feeling, therefore their religion must be the right one. Kill the heretics!

3) that I see events occur in my life, after dealing with certain emotions while in this process of receiving/praying, that reflect my changed emotional condition.

It's not even a coincidence. We meet people like this all of the time, and just aren't open to it. When your emotional state opens to experience, that lets you see opportunities that were there all along but that you were blinded to.

An Islamic extremist can say the same thing. When he realized god's anger, after a few days of prayer he met another who led him on the path to become a suicide bomber. This must be the will of Allah!

How are you right, and he wrong?
Tell me the actual difference between your thought processes.

I don't really want to either.

That's the real reason. You don't want to. Even if it's not true, you want to believe a lie. You just want to believe what you want to believe.
You have to be open to the truth, whether you like it or not, to receive it. Now you are closed to it, because you're afraid of it, or the lie is too comfortable.

But the belief system also gives me some ways to explain the beliefs of muslims and christians and hindus.

You apparently know nothing of these other religions if you think their belief systems don't provide them with equally convincing ad hoc explanations for your beliefs, and the beliefs of other religions.

I think if more people would have the humility (the desire to experience all their emotions, including fears/ false beliefs) they would come to the conclusion that they don't know what they think they know, and that some of their beliefs are unjustified.

Yes, you should do exactly that. Take your own advice here.

So it's not about hitting a lottery between "sets of beliefs" it's about willing to be wrong. In other words it's about humility.

But you aren't willing to be wrong. You aren't humble now. You stumbled into this accidentally, and now you're stuck.
There is no difference between your mindset, and that of any fundamentalist. You're using the same bad reasoning, and the same ad hoc excuses.

[brimstoneSalad]

[...] I don't really want to either.
[...] it's about willing to be wrong.

In case I haven't clearly done so: I admit that the entirety of my experiences of God could have just been caused in my brain. I admit that there's a possibility there's no god.

It's not just the possibility you need to admit. Your claims are empirically different from reality, and also logically impossible.

However the way I believe in God, is the same way most people believe we're not brains in a vat.

No, no it isn't. Not even a little bit.

The key to the "brain in a vat" argument is that the two realities are absolutely identical in every perceivable way.
Secondly, the brain in a vat is apparently logically consistent, and possible.

You're asserting a distinct reality which is empirically different from the reality we live in -- demonstrably false -- and you're doing it against evidence.
You're also asserting a metaphysics which is internally inconsistent and logically impossible, thus going against logic itself.

You're not just picking your preference between two equal and equally viable alternatives here.


Anyway, as I said before, most people would probably be wrong to believe certainly that we aren't in any way brains in vats (although right to believe that we are real as well), because if it's really possible then it's true in some instantiation of universe. The point is that we should act as if it is not true, as if everything is real, because that's the only case with moral substance. Morality is what matters, not trivialities like that, and our morality is based on the honest information we should believe based on what most objective data we have access to -- science. Whether it's true or not is irrelevant.
Brain in vat, or evil trickster god; if we have done wrong by believing what honestly seemed to be true by objective analysis of our apparent surroundings (science, not bias!), if we have been misled by malevolent forces, that is not our wrong -- we who made every reasonable honest attempt at doing right -- but the wrong of those malevolent forces that have manipulated us.