The key problem is that we assume that there exist an “I” who does experience. I could say that the experience happens without any reference point to an “I”. How you could show me that there is an “I”?
The “I” is the label that is given to the receiver of experiences. Quite simply, I cannot show you with certainty that a separate receiver of experiences to you exists. But I can give evidence.
Can you be sure that you are the only receiver of experience that you call your own experience?
How did that electricity start to produce a universal schematic and the entire chain of cause and effect which is so intelligent. He might have a plausible explanation, its very difficult to say when speaking for others who may have an engineering degree or further with physics etc. They tend to see everything as interconnected. But there is the moral, so there has to be many combined paradigms of cognitive thought and thinking that I don’t know we can speak on in anothers regard.
I was thinking the same the other day with the computer conversation and how they equate the chips with monkee brain power today. The power of 100 monkee brains in the vat. Course the reason for the computer and the monkee comparison is so they seem to be more like humans. The wireless power of 100 monkee brains in a vat.
I think there is not a thing wrong with it, in fact I believe it to be the better path.
The argument isn’t about skeptical philosophy, its about proven your point and in this sense the skeptic is simply more discerning The others proudly proclaim they have a theory with no facts, indicated by the 1939 date.
Well, no, in that he can’t get whacked over his (nonexistent) head with it, as you or I could.
Still, a “vat” fitted with eyes, nose, skin, ears, limbs, etc, is perfectly capable of providing genuine experiences to the mind, which is not the current thought conjecture.