The dispute that abounds rationalism and empiricism is one about the extent at which a human being will remain dependent on the sense experiments in furtherance of gaining knowledge. Rationalists opine, there are several major ways in which the concepts and knowledge will be achieved independently of the sense experiences. Empiricist like Locke still have the claim about sense experience is that it is the sole source of all of an individual’s concept and knowledge. Rationalists like Descartes have developed their view in two major ways where they have argued that the cases where content of an individual’s concepts and knowledge will outstrip any information that a sense experiment will normally provide. Secondly, they have always had accounts where reason in some way or other will always provide an additional information concerning the world. For empiricists, they will settle for skepticism as an alternate to rationalism and are of the notion that reason is a source of concepts or knowledge, a rationalist’s stand. This paper is a critical discussion of the “Brain in a Vat” argument, which is synonymous with the global or Cartesian skepticism. The thought process will be analyzed vis-à-vis theme studied in Descartes. Brain in a vat is an example of the global skepticism we experience; this discussion is between the rationalist and the empiricist.
John Locke- Hello mate, are we at par as regards the human understanding? If not, I am more than willing to expound more on this topic, of importance is that I get it through to you to understand the foundational doctrines of the empiricist philosophical founding. Having formerly been majorly influenced by you, I was obliged to criticize you for and thus I developed the principles of empiricism, mine is an innate reflection of ideas where rationalists consider important and elaborate my position the best way I know how.
Rene Descartes- Well then, I will be glad if you would take your time to debunk my position on the thesis I have fronted, In my argument in the Mediations on First Philosophy I have postulated the idea of a deception to human beings by an evil being or demon.
Locke. Briefly, you are looking propose the idea of global skepticism by proving that the brain in a vat experiment by Putnam is possible?
Descartes. Affirmative, once I am done with this issue the repercussions my arguments shall have on the debate surrounding realism will be felt far and wide, and how Putnam’s argument should be inferred should ever again be misconstrued.
Locke. That will be indeed a remarkable feet, considering that convincing anyone that there is an evil scientist removing their brains and placing them in vats to keep the brains alive. When this sort of possibility has been mentioned, I believe what we are left to discuss is the classical issue that is skepticism with respect to our external world.
Descartes. As a rationalist, we have always adopted at least one of three claims. The Intuition thesis will concern itself with how one will become permitted to believing in propositions, as you know, some of the propositions in a particular subject area will only be knowable through intuition alone and others are known through deductions made from the intuited propositions. There are many differences between the rationalist and the empiricist like you my friend.
Locke. Please expound friend.
“Brain in a Vat” Argument
Descartes. You see, we rationalist vary so much the strength of our views through an adjustment of warrant, what this means is that we do not take the warranted beliefs to be beyond the slightest doubt and claim that a mere intuition will provide the belief of the high epistemic status. Other individuals do interpret these warrants more conservatively, like some sort of belief beyond any reasonable doubts. What would you say is the rationalist approach to human knowledge?
Locke. Well, I have tried advancing in my work called An Essay Concerning Human understanding, which makes an enquiry into human knowledge. I am of the view that human being holds higher advantage and dominion over all planetary objects and animals, this dominion is what has led man to explore and expand his knowledge, coupled with the degree belief system and assent of each animal.
Descartes. I don’t seem to follow, what are the ideas that man acquires as knowledge?
Locke. What I mean to say is that man’s understanding and knowledge is something innate and therefore the belief system is based on innate and primary principles that they acquired from the onset of their conception, a human soul will get them in its first being and come into the world with the knowledge intact.
Descartes. In addition, the conditions under which a perspective can be referred to as knowledge, where do we classify this?
Locke. Let us look at it in this perspective, while it is true to say that children and fools possess minds but cannot assent to what is the truth. You see mate, it will be a very sharp contradiction when we take this as being the truth, which a being was given in his soul, why do I say this? The answer lies in the mere fact that the same does not perceive and understand them, therefore how could all this be said to be innate, they will remain notions that are imprinted if they remain to be unknown.
Descartes. On Putnam’s argument, how does the same auger with you on the external-world skepticism?
Locke. The issue is perhaps a very tricky one; a representative sceptic of this argument is one that will doubt everything outside his own mind, except his brain vat and computer that are placed outside the mind. This man will have no capability of forming direct and indirect perceptual connections with the isolated islands of the external realities that he once left behind; to this point, skepticism is still self-refuted.
The argument postulated by this is that Putnam’s refutation of an external world skepticism will be heavily reliant upon and limited to a specially tooled skeptical hypothesis, whereby we have an external deceiving agent. The assumption is that it is materialistic in nature, perhaps to view why the BIV argument and the perception that we are in a computer does not hold, the discussion below proceeds to explain
One suggestion on the BIV is that any utterances made here will be very empty. The BIV does not make assertions at all. This argument is a very strong one, the question however arises whether it would mean anything when it makes an utterance, for example using the utterance, and ‘there is a cat in front of me’. Even if the statement is put under an evaluation differently because of the radical differences of the environment, one thing, which will remain certain and very clear is the fact that the BIV perceptions of a “cat” or any other referral term will bear a very different reference assignment from that of a non-envatted being perceptions .
Locke. According to Causal Constraint (CC) my own rendering or tokening of “cat” will be in reference to cats because an appropriate causal link does exist between it and the actual cat, with the assumption being that I am not an actual BIV. Brains in a vat will however not be capable to refer to cats because there are no cats and even if there were cats, there would be no appropriate causal relation between the tokening of “cats” and what real cast are. This can only be the case when I invoke the standard fantasy and assume it was picked from the mad scientists. When this is the position, the formal conditional proof can then be looked at; it makes an assumption and infers what it means with the constant factor being the brains in a vat. An example has been made below
I. Assumption is that I am a brain in a vat
II. If I am a brain in a vat, then “brain “will not refer to brain and “vat” will not refer to vat (Via causal constraint)
III. If “my brain in a vat” does not refer to brain in a vat, then “I am a brain in a vat” is a false statement
IV. If I am a brain in a vat, the sentence “I am a brain in a vat” is false (I, II, III)