Why could a brain in a vat never truthfully say "I am a brain in a vat"?
A philosopher argued that even if you really were just a brain floating in a jar, wired to a supercomputer, the sentence "I am a brain in a vat" would still come out false.
ⶠStart the storyBecause of what its words could mean. Philosopher Hilary Putnam argued that a brain that had only ever lived inside a simulation could not refer to real brains or real vats at all: when it says "brain" and "vat," it can only mean the simulated ones it has encountered. So even if you really were such a brain, the sentence "I am a brain in a vat" would not come out true. The scenario, conceived by Gilbert Harman and turned by Putnam into a modernized version of Descartes's evil demon, has a mad scientist remove a brain, suspend it in a vat of life-sustaining liquid, and wire it to a supercomputer that feeds it impulses identical to the ones a normal brain receives.
Step 1: Remove the brain
A mad scientist removes a brain from its body.
Step 2: Suspend it in a vat
The brain floats in life-sustaining liquid.
Step 3: Wire it to a computer
Wires carry impulses identical to those a normal brain receives.
Step 4: Feel normal
From the inside, it cannot tell whether it is in a skull or a vat.
The reasoning turns on how words get their meaning. Putnam's argument rests on the causal theory of reference, which says a word for an object is meaningful only if it has an actual information-carrying causal connection to that object. A "pure" brain in a vat, one that never existed outside the simulation, has only ever interacted with the simulation itself, so when it uses the words "brain" and "vat," those words can only refer to simulated brains and simulated vats inside its artificial world, never to real ones. Putnam illustrated the same idea with a simpler image: if a monkey happened to type out the exact text of Hamlet by pure chance, it still wouldn't be referring to Shakespeare's play, because the monkey has no actual knowledge of it. Putnam concluded that the statement "I'm a BIV" is necessarily false and self-refuting.
Beyond this wordplay, the scenario has a simpler and more famous use: as an argument for philosophical skepticism. Since a brain in a vat receives exactly the same impulses it would receive inside a skull, and that's its only way of interacting with anything, it's impossible to tell, from the inside, whether you're in a skull or a vat. And since you can't rule it out, the skeptic says there can be no good grounds for believing anything you believe: a modern version of much older doubts, including the Hindu concept of Maya, Zhuangzi's dream of being a butterfly, and Descartes's evil demon.
Quiz me
0/3
Recap
A kidnapped, once-embodied brain placed in a vat could truthfully call itself a brain in a vat; a 'pure' brain that never existed outside the simulation could not.
Surprising fact · Putnam argued a 'pure' brain in a vat could never truthfully say it was one, because its words would only refer to things inside the simulation, making the statement self-refuting.
Sources (1)
No source, no claim. Every fact in this lesson (21 claims) cites at least one of these.