What does philosophy have to say about brain in the vat hypothesis?

I am not a philosopher, but I have some questions about brain in the vat hypothesis. It seems to me that this hypothesis is not being discussed a lot in academia, but I am not sure about it. Can you guys do some philosophy and figure out the answers to the following questions:<br><br>From a non-dualism perspective: 1. how does our brain know what is real and what is simulated? Can we rely on the brain to judge the reality of what we see? This seems to be a contradiction because the brain is the device that is supposed to be tricked by the simulator. In other words, how can we trust a potentially tricked brain to judge the reality?<br><br>2. The Vat hypothesis has been discussed for many centuries, but the discussion was just based on the brain and the body. The whole discussion was just about a brain in a body, a brain in a vat, or a brain simulator in a lab. But, if we raise the level of abstraction and suppose that the whole universe is simulated by a higher intelligence, then this whole reality is not what we think it is. So, the discussion will be endless. In other words, what we experience in a simulated world can be simulated too, and anyone who is simulating us might be simulated by someone else and so on.<br><br>3. Another point to consider is the concept of time and how it is understood. Our experience of time is a function of the brain, and the brain might be tricked by a simulator. In other words, if our whole reality is simulated, can we trust our experience of time?<br><br>4. Another question is how do we judge what is real and what is not? Do we have a universal yardstick to make this judgment? Or is it a personal evaluation and judgment? According to Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is always better than a complex one. However, sometimes the simplest explanation might not be the best one. For example, the simulator might create an entire simulated reality and then call it a brain in a vat. In this case, the simplest explanation would be to say that the simulator has created a brain in a vat, but he can also create an entire simulated reality. So, how do we judge what is real and what is not?<br><br>From a non-dualism perspective: 5. According to the concept of non-dualism, our whole reality is a manifestation of our mind and consciousness. So, do we need to consider the possibility that the brain and the whole universe are simulated by a higher intelligence? Is this idea compatible with the concept of non-dualism?<br><br>6. As someone mentioned in a comment, how do we know that the world we see is not just a filtered version of the external reality? In other words, how do we know that the external world is not very different from how we perceive it? If this is the case, do we need to consider the possibility that the world we see is a simulated version of the external world?<br><br>7. Can we consider our brains a biological filter and the world we perceive is just the data that gets through the filter? If this is the case, then the data that gets through the filter is not necessarily the external world as it is.<br><br>8. What role does our consciousness play in this context? Do we have a fixed consciousness, and our whole existence is a manifestation of this consciousness? Or is our consciousness dynamic, and does it play a role in creating the reality we perceive? If this is the case, then the brain in a vat hypothesis might be irrelevant because the reality we perceive is created by our consciousness.<br><br>From a Buddhist perspective: 9. What is the nature of reality according to Buddhism? Is it possible that our whole reality is simulated by a higher intelligence? According to Buddhism, all phenomena arise out of ignorance and are fabrications. So, if everything is simulated reality, it might fall in this definition. <br><br>10. How do we know that what we see is a reality and not just a projection of our own mind. In other words, what we experience and perceive can be just a product of our own mind and not an external reality. So, is it possible that the world we perceive is just a product of our own mind?<br><br>11. How do we know that the world we perceive is not just a dream? In other words, what is the difference between a dream and a reality? In this context, the world we perceive is just a dream of our own mind.<br><br>12. In Mahayana Buddhism, there is a concept called the "Matrix of Reality" or "The Matrix of Existence". So, in this context, reality is not an external existence but rather an internal existence or a manifestation of our own mind.<br><br>From a scientific perspective: 13. From a scientific perspective, what evidence do we have to support the idea of a brain in a vat hypothesis? Or, are there any experiments that can be conducted to test the hypothesis?<br><br>14. Another point to consider is the concept of parallel universes or the multiverse. This concept is based on the idea that there is another universe for every possibility. If there is another universe for every possibility, can we judge what is real and what is not?<br><br>15. From a non-dualism perspective, do we have any other evidence that can confirm or negate the idea of the brain in a vat hypothesis?