Search

Putnam’s argument against the sceptical Brain-in-a-Vat hypothesis continues to intrigue. I argue in what follows that the argument refutes a particular kind of sceptic and make a proposal about its more general significance. To appreciate the soundness of the argument, I explain, we need to appreciate that the sceptic’s contention is that I cannot know that I am not a brain in a vat even if I am not. This is why in response to the sceptic it is legitimate to make a transition from knowing that a sentence is true to knowing the truth it expresses, which is the crucial move in the argument.

Putnam’s semantic argument against the BIV hypothesis and Sosa’s argument against dream skepticism based on the imagination model of dreaming share some important structural features. In both cases the skeptical option is supposed to be excluded because preconditions of its intelligibility are not fulfilled (affirmation and belief in the dream scenario, thought and reference in the BIV scenario). Putnam’s reasoning is usually interpreted differently, as a classic case of deception, but this feature is not essential. I propose to interpret BIV’s utterances as cases of reference failure best captured by truth-value gaps. Both anti-skeptical strategies are then vulnerable to the same type of objections (how do we know what state we are in or how do we know what kind of language do we speak).

Brain in a vat scenarios in analytic philosophy feature both brains and technological apparatus. The relation between specimens and technology is an interesting aspect of these scenarios, and in order to explore this relation, I contrast here two kinds of scientific collecting practices: the collection of post-mortem brains versus the compilation of digital brain atlases. This contrast highlights a novel configuration of the relation between brains (in digital media) and new information technologies. This new configuration is traced back to the late 1980s, which saw the rise of a new kind of collection of brains, with a markedly different scope and nature: the neuroscience database. Brains are now easily captured in vivo, so that while post-mortem brains were precious and few, scanners provide an embarrassment of riches in the form of terabytes of data. The rise of the virtual brain as a new digital object for research is reliant on the development of new imaging technologies, but also on the growth of computerised tools, informatics, and electronic networks in this field. These developments contribute to an informational turn in scientific research. This article considers what is involved in the shift in type of object, from the scarce, wet, biological brain to a plentiful, digital, virtual one. It discusses the significance of this new object in terms of collections, institutions, and research practices.

As formulated by Duncan Pritchard and John McDowell, epistemological disjunctivism is the claim that perceptual experience can provide the subject with epistemic justification that is reflectively accessible and externally grounded at the same time. Pritchard calls this thesis ‘the holy grail of epistemology’, since it reconciles two traditionally rival theories of justification, namely epistemic internalism and epistemic externalism. The main objection against epistemological disjunctivism thus understood is that it does not do justice to the well-known internalist intuitions expressed in The New Evil Demon and Brain-in- a-Vat scenarios. I defend epistemological disjunctivism from this objection by indicating that those who apply to such scenarios commit themselves to implausible views in the philosophy of mind. I conclude that epistemological disjunctivism accurately expresses the epistemological attitude of a non-reductive materialist regarding the body-mind problem.

In 1998, Eric Kandel wrote in his intriguing paper titled “A new intellectual framework for psychiatry” (Kandel, 1998) that “the unique domain which psychiatry occupies within academic medicine, the analysis of the interaction between social and biological determinants of behavior, can best be studied by also having a full understanding of the biological components of behavior.” Fifteen years later, much like surfers who continue a frustrated and longing pursuit for the next “big one” (Cowan et al., 2000; Kandel, 2006), we are, according to Henrik Walter, in the midst of the third wave of biological psychiatry (Walter, 2013). Because a wave is, in a physical sense, a disturbance that propagates through space and time while transferring energy, there are at least three reoccurring “thermodynamic sinks” that I would like to also emphasize with Walter to ultimately better understand the complexity of the human brain in action (Bassett, 2011). First is the rediscovery of the coequal contributions of emotions and affects toward normal brain functioning (Damasio, 2003; Tsuchiya and Adolphs, 2007). After Michael Gazzaniga and George Miller “invented” “cognitive neuroscience” in the late 1980s (Zorumski and Rubin, 2011), the predominance of a cognition-centered view of “higher” (and perhaps as one facet: more noble?) brain functions was able to again delay necessary and not so new “insults” to our species and misdirect (in its top-down-view of brain functioning) the conceptualization and treatment of mental disorders (Cromwell and Panksepp, 2011; Almada et al., 2013). Neurobiology helps us recalibrate the human wishful thinking we had come to appreciate regarding the “higher” and “lower” of the “conditio humana” imprinted in our (neuro)physiology. As the world divides into facts, there is in fact no such hierarchy imprinted in our brains. Rather, the brain seems to favor “dynamic coalitions of networks of brain areas with a high degree of connectivity,” and these networks - or the connectome - should not be conceptualized as being specifically affective or cognitive (Pessoa, 2008). Second is the rediscovery of the body in biological psychiatry. Walter mentions the “4Es” (embodiment, embeddedness, enactivism, extended cognition) and the challenge of so-called “situatedness” (Walter, 2013). However, the very first step toward valuing the operant inter-wovenness of mind and body might be a simpler one. Interestingly of ectodermal origin, neural tissue emerged enabling motor control in an evolutionary beneficial way. The brain originates in relation to a body that again, in relation to the outer world, actively moves – and, not least, gained the ability to interact with other bodies. Sensory information about the “situation,” the re-flective information involved in reflexes, is primarily able to close the loop and help coordinate movement. If Antonio R. Damasio is right, there is a need for emotions before we can feel anything, and these emotions are intimately connected with “more or less the complex reactions the body has to certain stimuli” (Damsio, 2005). These so-called “somatic markers” (Damasio, 1996) apparently make us capable of making predominantly beneficial decisions for self-preservation and the (we have to admit: biologically sexual) preservation of our species. It is designative that the brain is the “unmoved mover.” However, changes are also reflected in the brain itself if the “motor-sensory” connections to the body are disturbed, e.g., in paraplegia (Wiens, 2005; Lenggenhager et al., 2012). The fantasy of an ever-dreaming, monolithic (but nonetheless self-conscious) “brain in a vat” that could reasonably think (or meaningfully simulate) about “what is it like to be a bat” (Nagel, 1974) currently suffers from not only solipsistic but also neurobiological-Darwinistic (so to say “inborn”) pitfalls. In this manifold context, it is interesting that today's “modern or third wave” of psychiatry is more willing to pay increased attention to enigmatic somatic symptom disorders (other than at first glance mere “brain disorders” such as schizophrenia, depression, addiction, and dementia) and attempts to incorporate the body and its imprinted neural representation into a genuine, more holistic understanding of the field. One could interpret it as a new esteem of anciently quirky psychosomatics in biological psychiatry that overcomes its centro-centric monodimensionality. Third is the rediscovery of the importance of “being in relation” for reasonable neural functioning, especially in terms of social relationships for the human brain. From birth until death, human mammals need the “significant other(s),” and it is perhaps the most integrating framework covering cognitive and affective neurosciences that will give rise to emerging social neurosciences (Eisenberger and Cole, 2012; Singer, 2012). Newly emerging imaging techniques, such as hyperscanning (Babiloni and Astolfi, 2012), i.e., the simultaneous recording of brain activity of different subjects that allows “the study of inter-brain correlations between the cerebral activity of a group of interacting subjects as a unique system” (Babiloni and Astolfi, 2012), will help us understand the brain and perhaps pave the way to a central second-person neuroscience (Schilbach et al., 2013). Against this background, and only as one important example, empathy and the question of its quality and quantity in men have gained more and more attention in modern neuroscience (Gonzalez-Liencres et al., 2013). Psychotherapy and its proven impact on mental health (Etkin et al., 2005), before any technical question, fundamentally relies on the quality of the relation between two human beings (like patient and therapist) (Ardito and Rabellino, 2011). One could, again, interpret this rediscovery as the new esteem of anciently subordinate psychotherapy in biological psychiatry. Finally, after three waves, a fourth wave seems inevitable. I would venture to predict that this “new wave” will belong to the computational neurosciences (Wen et al., 2011; Poldrack et al., 2012) and arise from the background of information integration theory (Tononi, 2005). The Human Brain Project (Markram, 2012) which was awarded one of the European Union's Flagship grants in 2013, worth more than €1 billion ($1.35 billion) over the next ten years, aims for the first time to tie or link up all knowledge of and to simulate the complete human brain from the molecule to the cortex on supercomputers to better understand how it functions (or even malfunctions), is ultimately the first step into a new era of real cooperativeness among neuroscientists and brains (Markram, 2013). Unfortunately, largely without “third wave” psychiatry. Just as affect and cognition, body and soul, the body-bound brain and the brain of my conspecific, and psychiatry and psychosomatics grow together, entities that belong together grow together. We have the opportunity to see the emergence of a new, non-reductionist science of fractal brains, as we examine mental orders and disorders differently, in a “brainy way,” with more cooperation and integration than ever before. In one word, in accordance with Henry Markram (Kandel et al., 2013): exciting!

Bekommen wir vielleicht alle unsere Sinneseindrücke aus einem gigantischen Simulationscomputer? Nein. Von Crispin Wright stammt die beste und kürzeste Fassung des Arguments von Hilary Putnam, wonach wir nicht seit jeher Gehirne im Tank sein können (oder Opfer der "Matrix"). Wright vermeidet die meisten Missverständnisse, denen die ursprüngliche Fassung des Arguments aus "Reason, Truth and History" (Putnam 1981) ausgesetzt war. Nichtsdestoweniger droht dem Argument selbst in Wrights Fassung die Gefahr vorauszusetzen, was erst zu zeigen ist. Zwar lassen sich die philosophischen Voraussetzungen des Arguments (Disquotationsprinzip und Externalismus) so formulieren und verteidigen, dass in ihnen kein einziger der Außenweltgegenstände vorausgesetzt wird, die laut Gehirn-im-Tank-Szenario zweifelhaft sind. Dennoch funktioniert das Argument nur mit einer Zusatzprämisse, der zufolge es einige Außenweltgegenstände gibt. Damit das Argument nicht zirkulär wird, muss man es mit Außenweltgegenständen durchführen, die laut Gehirn-im-Tank-Szenario existieren – also mit Computern oder Gehirnen anstelle von Tigern oder Bäumen. Denn solange die Skeptikerin über Gehirne im Tank diskutiert, sollte sie besser weder Computer anzweifeln noch Kausalität. Tut sie's doch, so leugnet sie im selben Atemzug, ein Gehirn im Tank zu sein, dessen Sinneseindrücke von einem Computer verursacht werden. Are we perhaps in the "matrix", or anyway, victims of perfect and permanent computer simulation? No. The most convincing—and shortest—version of Putnam's argument against the possibility of our eternal envattment is due to Crispin Wright (1994). It avoids most of the misunderstandings that have been elicited by Putnam's original presentation of the argument in "Reason, Truth and History" (1981). But it is still open to the charge of question-begging. True enough, the premisses of the argument (disquotation and externalism) can be formulated and defended without presupposing external objects whose existence appears doubtful in the light of the very skeptical scenario which Putnam wants to repudiate. However, the argument is only valid if we add an extra premiss as to the existence of some external objects. In order to avoid circularity, we should run the argument with external objects which must exist even if we are brains in a vat, e.g. with computers rather than with trees. As long as the skeptic is engaged in a discussion of the brain-in-a-vat scenario, she should neither deny the existence of computers nor the existence of causal relations; for if she does, she is in fact denying that we are brains in a vat.

Können wir uns eine Seele ohne Körper vorstellen? Verstehen wir z.B. die Rede von einer unsterblichen Seele? Manche Materialisten verneinen diese Frage; damit liegen sie falsch. Ihr Fehler besteht darin, dass sie die Semantik der mentalen Ausdrücke eines eingetankten Gehirns nicht korrekt analysieren können. Tanksprachliche Ausdrücke wie "Ich denke", "Ich glaube" usw. müssen bei Übersetzung in unsere Sprache nicht uminterpretiert werden; sie sind semantisch stabil. Im Gegensatz dazu sind physikalische Ausdrücke semantisch instabil; laut Putnams Externalismus können sie nicht unverändert in unsere Sprache transportiert werden. Dieser Gegensatz eröffnet uns eine neue Möglichkeit fürs Verständnis der Unsterblichkeit: Ein Gehirn im Tank könnte überleben und sein geistiges Leben fortsetzen – selbst nach Eintritt dessen, was es in seiner Sprache als "biologischen Tod meines Körpers" bezeichnet. Can we conceive of a mind without body? Does, for example, the idea of the soul's immortality make sense? Certain versions of materialism deny such questions; I shall try to prove that these versions of materialism cannot be right. They fail because they cannot account for the mental vocabulary from the language of brains in the vat. Envatted expressions such as "I think", "I believe", etc., do not have to be reinterpreted when we translate them to our language; they are semantically stable. By contrast, physical expressions from the vat language are semantically instable; due to Putnam's externalism they cannot be transported to our language without change. This contrast opens the way to a new understanding of what the immortality of the soul might be like: A brain in a vat (and its mental life) might survive what the brain calls "my physical body's death".

Der Handlungs-Utilitarismus lässt sich mithilfe eines neuen, transzendentalen Arguments widerlegen: Wer stets den Nutzen maximiert, auch beim Reden, der kann seine moralische Position (aus interpretationstheoretischen Gründen) weder formulieren noch haben – der Utilitarismus unterminiert die Bedingungen der Möglichkeit seiner eigenen Artikulation. In Abschnitt I charakterisiere ich die Form von Utilitarismus, um die es gehen wird – Handlungs-Utilitarismus auf der idealen Ebene des ethischen Denkens. In Abschnitt II werde ich einen älteren Widerlegungsversuch dieses idealen Akt-Utilitarismus vorstellen und entkräften. Er stammt von Hodgson und ähnelt meinem Argument. Wer Hodgsons Widerlegungsversuch entrinnen will, ist gut beraten, sich auf eine Sprachphilosophie à la Quine einzulassen. Im Abschnitt III tritt Quines Prinzip des Wohlwollens ("principle of charity") auf den Plan. Hier werde ich mithilfe dreier Gedankenexperimente die Beweistechniken vorführen, die meinem Argument zugrundeliegen. Das Argument selber formuliere ich in Abschnitt IV. Ich werde zeigen, dass handlungsutilitaristische Akteure weder Versprechen noch Behauptungen formulieren können. Diese These werde ich in Abschnitt V gegen sechs kleinere Einwände und in Abschnitt VI gegen einen gewichtigen Einwand verteidigen. Im Abschnitt VII werde ich das Argument vervollständigen. I want to explore a new way of refuting act-utilitarianism. My claim is that nobody maximizing utility can possibly be said to believe in act-utilitarianism. In section I, I shall circumscribe the sort of utilitarianism with which we'll be concerned: Act-utilitarianism on the ideal level of ethical thought. Section II is devoted to an earlier attempt of refuting act-utilitarianism, which resembles the argument from this paper. I shall try to show that the proposed refutation (due to Hodgson) is not convincing because it leaves out half of the story. In that section, I shall also motivate the theoretical (Quinean) background of my own argument. The main hero of section III will be Quine's principle of charity; we'll be concerned with three preliminary thought experiments so as to become familiar with the dialectical techniques that will be needed for refuting act-utilitarianism. The core of my paper can be found in section IV. I shall demonstrate that act-utilitarian agents can express neither promises nor assertions. After having defended the latter claim (as regards assertions) against six small objections (section V) and one big objection (section VI), I shall complete my argument in section VII.