One's "Physical Experience" Can be Proven to be Absolutely True

:: vi_spex said, "information is false and truth, matter is true, 0 and 1" It is possible for information to be in agreement with reality, and is thus, not guaranteed to be false. I can find no definition of the word "matter" that makes sense in the context you have provided. :: vi_spex said, "to say you are a brain in a vat you would have to say reality is false, is reality false? and is imagination true? possibilities are imaginary" To say such a thing would mean that the reality that you *perceive* as true would be, in actuality, false. Since your sensory input is your "Physical Experience", your "Physical Experience" would then be false. Since this situation remains a possibility, then the proposition of this debate remains false. :: vi_spex said, "a computer can never work my brain, becasue data is not mental, not information(disproves the brain in a vat theory)" All of the knowledge that you possess about brains and computers would be rendered completely invalid, as that knowledge is derived from your perception and experience of the reality that your perceive. All of that could just be fabricated (false) information that is being fed to your brain in a vat. Due to this, your reasoning does not disprove the theory. To further delve into the principle of this theory, the title "Brain in a Vat" holds an assumption, in itself. This title implies that it is fact that a brain is required for existence, when in reality, we have attained this knowledge from our experience in our perceived reality. This means this information could be fabricated, as well, and that existence does not rely on a brain as we know it. The reason that the title contains the word "brain" is so that the concept is easier to grasp. You stated that you *know* that you have five fingers, and that you *know* that you are [were] typing with your hands and seeing the words on the screen. You are convinced that this is so because there is no reason to doubt that the information [evidence] received by your brain is false. However, if all of the information [evidence] is false, then what you *know* will be false. If all of your senses are falsified, your brain could be fooled into thinking that you had six fingers. You only know that you have five fingers because of all of the sensory evidence you have to support it. However, if all of that evidence has been fake this whole time, you could actually have six fingers but *know* that you have five. :: vi_spex said, "so everything you see is just a confirmation that your brain works huh, you dont actually see anything" Your eye registers light that enter the eye and strikes the retina. Embedded in the retina are millions of light sensitive cells, which come in two main varieties: rods and cones. Rods are used for monochrome vision in poor light, while cones are used for color and for the detection of fine detail. Cones are packed into a part of the retina directly behind the retina called the fovea, which is responsible for sharp central vision. [2] Nerves that connect the brain with the eyes, ears, nose, and throat and with various parts of the head, neck, and trunk are called cranial nerves. [1] The information from the eye is sent to your brain via synapses along the cranial nerves. This leaves a gap between the eye and the brain where the information can change or be changed, resulting in a difference between what the eye "sees" and what the brain perceives. All of your senses operate in a similar manner, so no matter what you believe you see, hear, etc. is being transmitted from the appropriate receptor cells through the cranial nerves to your brain. This leaves room for the possibility of error or miscommunication between the senses and the brain. The theory in question postulates that your nerves are "highjacked" and the transmission is replaced with artificial, fabricated information. :: vi_spex said, "numbers are imaginary, but math is absolute, if you have a bear skin, you have a dead bear, and if you have a bear skin, i know it comes from a bear" You would still require experience or knowledge of what skin is in order to make that assessment. This knowledge is gleaned from memory, which is the result of previous physical experiences. :: vi_spex said, "there is no logic in fantasy, i cant die in a dream, as i can only die if i am alive" How do you know that you can even die in reality? You only are aware of the concept of death because of previous physical experience, and only believe it because all of the knowledge you have gained supports the notion. However, if all of that information has been falsified, the reality of it might even be that you are eternal. :: vi_spex said, "sense=objective experience, does make sense...." :: vi_spex said, "is an apple in your hand not an object?... do you not experience that object.." That is not what the word "objective" means; it doesn't mean "relating to objects". Look the the definition in Round #1. Round #2 Conclusion: None of the statements provided have disproved the possibility of the "Brain in a Vat" theory, and thus, the subject of the debate cannot be true. Given that ALL of your knowledge and memories would be COMPLETELY fabricated in this scenario, you cannot use ANY knowledge or memories to disprove it. You have one more round to attempt to disprove this theory. Good luck! [1] Merck Manuals - http://www.merckmanuals.com... [2]Live Science.com - http://www.livescience.com...