Science of Consciousness (David Chalmers)

1. depends on what you mean by percieved. 2. how can anyone really get around the brain in the vat argument. redical skepticism keeps us locked in if we follow that starting point with the normal assumptions. science does not help us here.

for an idealist "perceived" would mean pseudosensing representations of something that isnt there in the first place. for you and me its seeing, hearing sensing normally. Berkeley used god to 'prove' that unperceived things exist. Later idealists have disputed that but none have truly solved it because it cant be solved in that framework. We see trees, we sense what's there. Being a brain in the vat is so remote, the chances are trillions to one so we can safely assume i'm not a brain in a vat

I disagree, we have no evidence to show that we are not a brain in a vat or in the matrix or what ever. nothing to substantiate our sense data. furthermore we have nothing to ontologically determine what exactly it is that we are experiencing via our senses. the vary distinctions we use to differentiate our bodies and our minds from "the world" are very arbitrary given the latter.

we do have firm evidence that we're not in the matrix. It's to do with energy and how you cant create or destroy it. im a bit busy so ill answer the rest a bit later

True, but they're not so arbitrary given that they're our only means of interacting with and reasoning about a reality.

Science might not help you, but the overall uselessness of believing the conclusion of the brain in a vat argument does a pretty good job of making it absurd and easily dismissible for practical purposes.

It's also not clear to me why anyone who actually believed the argument to be true would bother to present it to another "person"(Who in his view is a dream/simulation). It's a bit like being an evangelical solipsist.

I often write down my ideas on paper, just to make order in my head, even if im not intending on ever communicating those ideas to other people. I think your point of view its a little narrow.

just cause something "might" be true doesn't make it true and given that, just because something "works" for us does not make it true either. pragmatism is just another form of relativism.

the brain in the vat argument is not usually meant to be taken as an actual position. to say that would be to miss the point. the point of it is a conceptual experiment to demonstrate skepticism of our the validity of our sense data. saying we "could" be a brain in a vat is not saying we are.

I agree. However, science doesn't have to describe consciousness in purely physical/psychological terms. It takes a union between phenomenological understanding (perhaps a functional account) and a mature neuroscience.

Kind of like that idea actually...Kant had alot of ideas of time being a container for everything, including subjective experience. (cause it is perceivable for time without a place, but not a place without time)