Despite our reliance on what are referred to as the five senses, the basis of our ability to

internalize the world around us is actually the result of a series of electric signals within the
brain. Due to the fact that these neurotransmissions are solely responsible for what we perceive
as reality, there is no way to identify the true source of what we see, hear, smell, feel, or taste.
In this paper I will argue against our physical existence, in favor of skepticism of the external
world. However, in doing so I will support the more modern Brain in a Vat Argument, as an
extension of The Dream Argument. Furthermore, I believe in the both premises of Descartes
argument, hence I accept the skeptics claim that we are unable to attain knowledge of an
external world.
According to those who are skeptical of the external world, we are unable to gain any
definitive knowledge or understanding of the environment around us. As a skeptic one would
reject the beliefs of another person due to a perceived lack of proof. For instance, these
individuals including myself deny the idea that it is possible to prove the existence of physical
objects experienced through sense-perception. These items include everything from our basic
tools to our most complex objects, even going so far as to include our own bodies. Many skeptics
attempt to justify this claim by referencing The Dream Argument, one of Descartes original
theories found within his Meditations on First Philosophy series. In this argument, Descartes
states that it is impossible to gain knowledge through our senses due to the fact that we cannot
know with any real certainty that were not dreaming. By stating this he opens up our existing
knowledge to doubt, threatening our confidence in the external world. This doubt furthers our
willingness to accept the various arguments against the possibility of an external world, and the
idea of knowledge itself.

In his writings, Descartes introduces us to this argument by sharing with us a dream

scenario. This scenario is made up of a fictional situation that plays on the idea that our senses
may be systematically deceiving us. Descartes states that he could be performing any given
action within his dream, and there would be no distinction between the way his senses would
perceive the fictional event from one that we consider to be real. Furthermore, he states that this
deception would continue for as long as the individual remained asleep, only once they awoke
would they realize the falsity in what they had just experienced. His argument follows the basic
premise that an individual cannot know whether theyre dreaming and, if they dont know if
theyre dreaming, they cannot know if they are being deceived by their senses. For example, I do
not know whether or not I am dreaming right now, therefore I cannot know with any certainty
that I am physically doing anything. According to the dream argument I could be asleep and
immobile in my bed, while simultaneously feeling as though I am awake and participating in a
physically demanding activity.
While his overarching conclusion is clear, Descartes reasoning is not universally
accepted. Various opponents of this argument may attempt to validate their skeptic claims by
referencing G.E. Moores Proof of an External World Argument. Before introducing his
argument he clarifies his definition of external object as a thing external to our minds. In his
argument, Moore attempts to prove the existence of the world around him through the use of
proofs, in which he rejects the second premise of Descartes Dream Argument. In this case his
proof is: Here is one hand... and Here is another hand, [therefore] two human hands exist at this
moment. It is Moores understanding that in the event he perceives an object to be real, then
that specific object existed prior to him perceiving it, and it will continue to exist independently
of his perception after he has finished. In proving the existence of an external object, Moore

essentially claims the existence of an external world. He then argues that just as Descartes
claimed that an individual is unable to prove that they arent dreaming, they are also unable to
prove that they are. Continuing with his argument he then states that an individual can gain
knowledge about something that they cannot prove, he then states that the very premises of his
proofs are something he cannot prove yet they are still something that can be believed.
Despite Moores assertions, I disagree with the main premise of his argument based on
the idea that his hands or whatever he selects for the given example could be nothing more
than figments of his imagination. I would argue that he unable to distinguish between a situation
where he is seeing a hand externally, and one where he is hallucinating (or in some cases,
dreaming) one internally. Consequently, he cannot know in a definitive manner whether or not
he actually have a hand again, validating my skepticism of the ability to attain knowledge that
proves the existence of an external world.
Moore could provide a counter argument based on the premise that a dream (or
hallucination) is not a self contained experience, alternatively stating that the illusion draws
inspiration from an existing external world. I find this response unsatisfactory due to the
continued development of Descartes original arguments. While the original dream argument is
flawed in that it is not all encompassing, I would argue that the Brain in a Vat argument a
modern extension of Descartes meditation arguments would discredit Moores skepticism and
validate my initial conclusion. The Brain in a Vat argument follows the that it is impossible to
know that we are not just bodiless organisms that exist within a controlled environment, i.e. a
vat. With this theory I would respond to Moores skepticism by arguing that: If Moore says he
has two hands, but he is actually a brain in a vat then he is actually correct, however the hands he
is referring to are virtual hands. Therefore, his conclusion that he possesses two hands is correct,

however they only exist within the virtual world rather than the external world. In this argument,
Moores hands would still be considered external objects as they are independent of our mind.
They are independent of our mind in that they are generated in a reality created by the vat, rather
than our conscience.
In addition to Moores theory, the Brain in a Vat could also account for, and extend, the
premises of the dream argument in that the dream itself could be an illusion generated by the
vats stimulation of the brain. This scenario can be illustrated through the following proof: It is
impossible to distinguish between a virtual reality and an external world. We dream in an
external world, therefore we dream in a virtual reality. With the addition of these premises the
argument against and external world becomes all inclusive, in both a sleeping and waking state.
As an all inclusive argument, we now have less knowledge and more doubt of the external world
than we did during the initial introduction of the Descartes Dream Argument.
In this paper I explained my reasoning for remaining skeptical of an external world by
supporting the Brain in a Vat argument. Subsequently, my argument contained an explanation
that remained supportive of the assertions made within The Dream Argument, further validating
my claims. I argued against the premises of Moores argument stating that, while an individual
may be able to conclude that it is possible to prove that objects can exist independently of the
brain, it is impossible to determine whether they are part of an external world. With that said, it
is impossible to distinguish between a virtual reality and an external world. Therefore, it is
impossible to gain a definitive knowledge or understanding of the outside world.

In this paper I discussed the Dream Argument. I argued that the first premise of that
argument is false because [summarize your objection]. Therefore, the dream argument is not
successful in showing that we cant gain knowledge of the external world.

Note: Explain skepticism-- tailor it to your own definition

EXPLAIN THE PREMISE OF THE ARGUMENT!!
i.e. modus ponens: If I dont know Im dreaming then I dont know
^^^ put in essay
two premises support the conclusions so we just need to support the two premises
dream argument. not a broad statement of unknown, we do know some things
Feldmans something: incorrigibility, absolute certainty,
moore would reject second premise I dont know Im not dreaming