Dennett states, without presenting a single number, that the bandwidth needs for reproducing our sensory experience would be so great that it is impossible (his actual word); and that this proves that we are not brains in vats.
Maybe I was being too generous when I read this chapter, but I don’t think that’s what Dennett was saying. He was saying that in order for a brain-in-a-vat to work, the operator would have to anticipate every possible observation you could make, resulting in a combinatorial explosion that could not be handled by anything simpler than the universe itself.
That ties in with his next point (that you mention) about hallucinations, and how they persist only until you make an observation that the hallucination-generator can’t fake.
It wasn’t about bandwidth (rate of information transfer) at all. But perhaps I should re-read it.
I just took a look at the prelude. I think that your interpretation is right. However, Dennett does use the word “bandwidth”, which might not have been the best choice. I can see why it would lead a reader to think that Dennett was talking about channel capacity.
Assuming the simulation is runnign in our universe. However, the Simulators could be fooling the Brains aout the size of the universe. Maybe what the Brains think the universe is, is a tiny corner of theirs. Equally, they could be fooling the Brains about
the capactities of computers, even the fundamental of computer science.
See, scepticism is a Universal Solvent [*]. Once you accept it all bets are off.
Maybe I was being too generous when I read this chapter, but I don’t think that’s what Dennett was saying. He was saying that in order for a brain-in-a-vat to work, the operator would have to anticipate every possible observation you could make, resulting in a combinatorial explosion that could not be handled by anything simpler than the universe itself.
That ties in with his next point (that you mention) about hallucinations, and how they persist only until you make an observation that the hallucination-generator can’t fake.
It wasn’t about bandwidth (rate of information transfer) at all. But perhaps I should re-read it.
I agree with your reading of Dennett.
I just took a look at the prelude. I think that your interpretation is right. However, Dennett does use the word “bandwidth”, which might not have been the best choice. I can see why it would lead a reader to think that Dennett was talking about channel capacity.
Assuming the simulation is runnign in our universe. However, the Simulators could be fooling the Brains aout the size of the universe. Maybe what the Brains think the universe is, is a tiny corner of theirs. Equally, they could be fooling the Brains about the capactities of computers, even the fundamental of computer science.
See, scepticism is a Universal Solvent [*]. Once you accept it all bets are off.
[*] D. C.Dennett.