Is this how I look like?

...

>i beielve in solipsism
>i dont beileve in souls
Id laugh at nothing too if I were as retarded as you

>I believe in solipsism

No one said that. Solipsism is just the first problem you have to tackle in a cohesive philosophy.

But seriously, souls? We can clearly observe how brain damage affects behavior and memory, why should we assume souls?

>how brain damage affects behavior
brain diseases arent the same as physically damagin a part of the brain. Which ends up as a minor event that doesn't play much of a role in that person's life as they use another part of their brain. If you looked at a chart of the brain you'd see that the whole thing is just there to remember patterns. Brain diseases are another matter entirely being that they are a curse, which affects the entire body of the human.
>first problem
if you only ever read modern and post modern literature I guess
>cohesive philoposophy
literally idols and ideologies

Dreams are instances of hallucinating everything, but that doesn't mean hallucinating everything is always the same as a dream. Basic "all squares are rectangles so therefore all rectangles are squares" logical fallacy you have going on here.
Dreams usually involve extreme delusional thinking where a lot of your normal mental resources are no longer available to tell you what you're experiencing is ridiculous and illogical. You can make a brain in a vat hallucinate in a way where it's experiencing an ordinary simulation of waking life without all that crazy dream logic business. You could also set it up to where the experiences are logically consistent so that the other objects in the hallucinated world follow laws of physics and things that happen to them have sensible consequences that persist into the future.

Holy shit kid get a grip

>You can make a brain in a vat hallucinate in a way where it's experiencing an ordinary simulation of waking life without all that crazy dream logic business.
no, you cant. You have a lot of wishful thinking and you obviously don't understand what I was writing to start claiming I made a teleogical fallacy. Its not a teleological fallacy because if something isn't real, e.g. a machine making a brain create images, it is the defintion of a hallucination. Should the person also not be awake due to not having a body, it is the equivalent of a dream because your body cannot input information.
>You could also set it up to where the experiences are logically consistent so that the other objects in the hallucinated world follow laws of physics and things that happen to them have sensible consequences that persist into the future.
there is not enough matter in the universe to create one hallucination machine of that calibre

>insults
stay mad

>MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUH STEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEM REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>observation is valid

Brainlet

>im so smart I don't beileve in prophets or souls and think stephen hawking is a smart guy and is basically this whole argument
go think some more about how pathetic and priveldged that guy is, you might realize how sad these post-modern thought experiments are. Literally humanist wankery

I didn't say anything about a teleological fallacy. I said you made the mistake of believing because dreams are hallucinations, all hallucinations have the properties of dreams. This is the same mistake as believing because squares are rectangles, all rectangles have the properties of squares.
In both cases, you're taking a specific example (dreams) of a more general thing (hallucination) and then turning it around and trying to pass off the qualities of that specific thing onto all other varieties of that general thing. You can't do that because dreams entail lots of additional shit that other varieties of hallucination / simulated experience wouldn't necessarily entail.
It's simply not a sound argument to claim that because our non-dream experiences aren't like dreams and dreams are hallucinations this means our non-dream experiences aren't hallucinations. It depends on the faulty premise that squares all being rectangles means rectangles must all be squares.

I never said that and even if I did it would be contradictory. I can believe in something without hard proof either way

OP you stupid cut your stumach open and you see that you're more then a computer and a brain in some liquid.

Somehow vaguely sexual

I hate Proddies.

>what is biocomputing

What is it?

Since you don't know the difference between how and what you problaby don't have a brain.

perhaps. or perhaps you're hooked into an arcade and all the years of your life were just 1 minute in the playstation 617 Life Simulator. The only way to get even close to answering any of these theories is to kill yourself in this reality.

No, this is what you look like.

if we go with the viewpoint that brain and nervous system = the true you, then would your face, your body parts, your organs merely be considered "tools" or "possessions", no different from a suit of armor?

Veeky Forums trying to discuss unexplainable questions is like watching 2 monkeys fight.

Occam razor is enough to btfo the brain in a vat and other solipsist shenanigans

How so? I'm a brainlet

Yes. The body is just the vehicle that keeps you alive.

>implying you are your brain
this must be what they mean when they say "brainlets" lol

>somehow
that's because it looks like a vagina ya putz