Before I present my criticism, I will briefly summarize Putnam's argument. Consider an ant crawling on a beach that accidentally outlines a picture of Winston Churchill. Many people would not claim that the ant purposely referred to Churchill. Despite the ants resembled drawing, it does not resemble or refer to Churchill.(Page 397, paragraph 2, "Brains in a Vat" Hilary Putnam) Putnam states that "nothing physical has …show more content…
Putnam admits that his whole "Brains in a Vat" theory is quite absurd(page 400, paragraph 1, Hilary Putnam), then it is also very conceivable to assume that we could articulate direct reference to some kind of input that is feeding a sophisticated vat. If the external "beings" that are responsible for the vats are supposedly highly sophisticated and advanced, then it is acceptable to claim that a whole set of references could have easily been constructed specifically for these vats. Its undeniable that these external sophisticated vat-creators could have the capability to send forth such references to brains in vats. A brain in a vats inadequate references may not be physically direct, but it still gives way to a whole other world of references that we can think and be skeptical from. If these brains have the ability to discuss their world with other brains in vats(page 400, paragraph 2, Hilary Putnam), then it is indubitable that the evatted brains can be skeptical of their