Since Descartes’ brain-in-a-vat analogy, people have pondered whether they really exist. Even in today’s modern times, movies like ‘The Matrix’ exemplify the modern paradigm of Descartes’ example. So can we prove we exist? In this paper, I hope to show that we can, but not the context we exist within. I will use the example of ‘The Matrix’ to not only show that a theoretical Matrix could deceive us, but also a more plausible and finite Matrix.

Descartes’ ‘cognito ergo sum’ (‘I think therefore I am’) is a perfectly valid method of proving we exist. The fact that we are thinking about our existence proves we exist! Unfortunately, this is as far as Descartes and myself agree - he uses this argument to corroborate the idea that the mind can exist without the body. Yet how can a non-physical entity think? I firmly believe that the act of thinking is a physical process - sensory information (or other events) triggers neurons to fire within the brain that in turn excites various other areas and causes chemical reactions that consequentially affects what we think and feel. Therefore, an entity that does not physically exist cannot think.

Dualism complicates matters by creating a double meaning for ‘am’ (and any other word related to the person or being). There is the physical meaning of ‘am’, existing within the physical world. Then there is the more abstract meaning of ‘am’ - one’s personality, one’s being and (dare I say it) one’s soul. Therefore, I may be taking Descartes’ meaning of ‘am’ out of context by using it as a combination of both the physical and the mental (since the mental is physical).

The problem that surfaces here is the degree of physicality that has to be associated with ‘being’ (or am-ness). How much of our physical body must be intact to consider us being. Our current Matrix example is safe, since the body is kept intact. Yet, the brain-in-a-vat example is different. Since we are merely a brain in a jar of preservatives being fed information do we exist?

Yes - our physicality is important but not necessary. Needless to say, our brain is part of our physical being therefore we must have the brain as part of that ‘minimal body’. The rest of our body is used by the brain to solve it’s own shortcomings - to keep itself alive (heart and lungs for oxygen and blood), to gain data from the outside world (eyes, ears and tactile sensors) and to use its physical extensions (arms, legs and fingers) to move and influence its surroundings.

To summarize: “I think, therefore I am” has to interpreted from the standpoint that ‘being’ consists our physical location and our mental processes. Our mental processes are in turn a physical process in our brain; therefore if reductionism must be applied to this concept, then the brain (along with anything necessary to keep it alive - although this could be artificial) is all that is necessary to ‘be’. Therefore, the mere act of thinking is sufficient to prove that brain processes are occurring, thus one exists!

It is the context in which we exist in that is impossible to determine. The brain-in-a-vat, God as a benevolent deceiver, evil genius and ‘The Matrix’ analogies are all instantiations of the same problem that I will call the problem of contextual existence. While we can tell that we exist, quite where we exist and whether our reality is the real reality is something we will never been able to prove due to the inherent limitations our body and brain suppose upon us. It is analogous to us trying to think in four (or any number above 3) dimensions - it is completely unthinkable! Let us look more precisely at our example - The Matrix.

Given infinite knowledge (or infinite computing power in our case) it is quite impossible to definitively prove that you are existing in the now as you understand it (I am writing an essay at my desk on my computer while listening to music) or whether I am being harvested in a massive “human field” for my bioelectric energy and I am being fed information via an interface plugged into my head and spine!

As far-fetched as it may be, it is theoretically possible (especially if the year is 2301, I only believe it is 2001) and irrefutable. It does lead to a pressing question - is this existence I am supporting really existence in the philosophical sense? The main argument against this contextual existence is that we lack free will that marks our physical existence as ‘being’. I would argue that our free will is preserved, since it is a ‘black box’ situation - input is fed in from the computers, our brain makes the decisions and those decisions are mapped on to an output that the computer interprets and subsequently alters our ‘reality.’

Let us go back on our original given that we had infinite computing power and made it more realistic - finite computing power; would the thesis still hold? Finite computing power means that the world our minds exist in turns from a replica into a simulation - a finite representation of an infinite reality. Glitches are bound to occur (such as deja-vu in The Matrix) so couldn’t we tell that our reality was a farce? Of course not, we would know no difference - the computer could make chicken taste like oranges yet we would still think it tasted like chicken.

To conclude, can I prove I exist? Yes, I am writing an essay on the topic that essentially proves I exist! The mere process of thinking proves one’s existence. Descartes proved this (albeit unintentionally, using my interpretation) using his famous “I think therefore I am”. Yet, thinking does not (and will not) prove the reality (or context) in which they are thinking. It is an impossible feat to prove that our reality is the real one and no Matrix, benevolent deceiver nor evil genius is controlling it.

Bibliography

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. 4th Edition. Cambridge: 1998.

Klimesh, Douglas C. The Simulation of the Physical World.

Matthews, James. Is ‘The Matrix’ Possible?