 Putnam goes on to suggest that while a BIV cannot think or say that she is a brain in a vat, her utterances of ‘BIV’ could refer to something else. For instance, the utterances could refer to (i) BIVs-in-the-image. That is, the utterances could refer to the succession of experiences as of being a BIV. In this case, the BIV’s utterance would just be false, since the computer program would never allow her to have perceptual experiences as of being an envatted brain as opposed to being an embodied person. (Of course, a BIV could only seem to be uttering words. So we should just identify her utterances with her mental ‘seemings’ to utter. See Putnam 1981 [1999: 31].)