Explanation:
If you think this sounds like the matrix, then you are right. This film and other sci-fi works were created under the influence of this thought experiment. The core idea of this experiment is to make people question the nature of their experiences and think about what it means to be a human being. The original prototype of this experiment can be traced back to Descartes. Descartes put forward such a question in his book Meditation on the First Philosophy: Can he prove that all his sensory experiences are his own, not some "evil devil"? Descartes used his classic saying "I think, therefore I am" to answer this question. Unfortunately, the "brain in a jar" experiment is more complicated, because the brain connected to the electrode can still think. This experiment has been widely discussed, and there are many refutations to its premise, but no one can effectively respond to its core question: how on earth can you know what is true?
Although it is advertised that this may be the most influential thought experiment, my analysis of it is similar to the previous logic that is neither salty nor light.
I want to simplify the above thought experiment more thoroughly-assuming that consciousness is the information processor and the outside world is the information source.
We must imagine that the world around us is a collection of a lot of information, which has different formats, and our consciousness can only process some formats of information, so we have a sensor like the body, which converts external information into the brain through some formats and provides it to the consciousness for processing.
The "sensor" here is not so narrow in the physical sense, but an "information format conversion system". The sensor in the physical sense is one of them, which converts the information of light, electricity, heat and other substances into the form of data information. Our bodies are transformed into bioelectric forms, and then information is provided to the brain and transformed into sensory forms again. We perceive the contents of the world.
The participation of countless external material objects makes some information enter our consciousness and be processed by thinking. Logically, it can improve efficiency, saying that there are not so many things to complete this information input. As long as we make a device to store all the information, which has the function of converting the information format and can be transmitted to the brain for conscious processing, the effect is the same.
At that time, the first computer was so huge and had so many parts that it completed rapid information processing. The efficiency was too low, and later people used a more subtle combination of equipment, making the specifications notebook-sized and with better functions.
That thought experiment has the same effect as this one, concentrating the structure of the world into one device, but the application effect is consistent or even better. Then it is said that "the first huge computer" (the huge world) and "exquisite home computer host" are applied to the same display screen (consciousness) respectively. Do you want to see what the mainframe looks like on the display screen?
Personally, I really haven't found a way, assuming that two different hosts provide exactly the same things to the display screen, and what the host looks like from the display screen.
But I want to say, "Everything is true."
Even though I had auditory hallucinations and hallucinations, I sensed objects that didn't really exist at that time. My feelings are still so truly reflected in my consciousness. That feeling is really happening, I really feel it. That is: I think, therefore I am.
When I hear voices and hallucinations, my feelings are real. What I feel is not "real", but these two "real" are not in the same sense. The latter truth is distinguished by "whether I can accurately judge according to the content", and the former truth is distinguished by "whether this sensory material is present in consciousness at the moment".
The latter real realization is considered to be beyond doubt, and doubt and no doubt are the same. Then let's examine the meaning of the first "truth".
We intuitively see that this "truth" is issued for "judgment". If the judgment is accurate, the probability of truth will be high (the reason why I say that the probability is high and I don't say it is true is based on the discussion of the thought experiment of the position of the cow in front).
This "judgment" belongs to "logical reasoning activity", and the object of judgment is "information", which is a classification of information-true and untrue. The basis of classification is whether it can accurately guide practice and achieve success, but this basis is not perfect and often flawed, but there is no new plan for the time being (the reason mentioned above).
A positive significance after classification is to make the decision of thinking move to the next stage, and no longer hesitate to consume time because the possibility has not been ruled out. That is, the purpose of seeking truth is to improve the decision-making efficiency of thinking. Revealing this point, we can't hold too much respect for the "truth", and uncertain factors sometimes add more excitement.