For us particularly the empirical view that sensations resemble their causes is perhaps more common sense than it had been for Descartes. That is, it is common for most people to understand the general path of the object perceived to the sensation of a perception, in terms of the objects, light and machinery of the eye involved. We learn about this in grade school. Yet the question is why we come to believe that our perceptions resemble the things which cause them. To see the difficulty here, we must first acknowledge that perceptions are non-extended, to use Descartes’ language, beings purely of thought. Moreover, every part of conscious existence is non-physical, to use our language. And yet physical or extended things have an existence completely separate from our thought. The chair does not require my perception or consciousness in order to exist, whereas without my consciousness, there can be no perception. That is our first clue that the perception and the thing perceived are different in kind.
Once we grant that premise, we must ask why a conscious perception must resemble the object perceived. Let us say, for simplicity’s sake, that we believe there is a causal relation between the perception and the thing perceived. The question remains why these things different in kind should have a relation of resemblance. Since they are different in kind, it seems doubtful that such a relation should exist. This would require us to explain why something that is different from another thing is transformed in kind, but in such a way that it may still resemble the original. For that matter, how do we even explain resemblance between differences in kind? Why would we say that the portrait of a person resembles that person? The portrait is two-dimensional and presents that person from a single point of view. Whereas the person is three-dimensional, by no means limited to the place in which the portrait is set and visible from a practical infinite points of view.
These are the matters than concern Descartes when he shows that a tickle does not resemble the feather than causes the sensation, nor a word the thing that is signified by it (“The World …”, 31). Given these purely conventional and non-essential relations, why do we cling to our common sense notion that perceptions resemble the objects perceived?
In computer science there is a concept of a "pointer". In general terms a pointer is a simple object whose value refers to the location in memory to another object, usually more complex. Similarly, the object we perceive in our mind is not the actual object itself, rather an object with its own set of properties that "point" to it.
ReplyDeleteMy theory as to why it happens is that the human mind is not able to process complex objects without special training and education and as such, "rounds off" these objects into something simple it can comprehend. Where a novice chess player looks at the board and perceives individual figures and their respective move possibilities, an expert perceives the board as one complete entity with structure and flow.
This is, perhaps, the ultimate goal of education and knowledge, to perceive objects exactly as they are.
While occupying the womb, the rudiments of language are presented to, and processed by the unborn fetus. After birth, children are repeatedly presented with physical objects in verbal association games and tasks (e.g. A is for APPLE, as one is shown an apple.) This simple method of connecting external objects through language is repeated and expanded on throughout childhood, and throughout one’s life. Language can be described as the outward expression of thoughts and inner perceptions. Its complexity runs in parallel with brain and cognitive development, with complex thoughts often coinciding with complex communication skills. Language also serves as a learned link between our perceptions and the actual objects that these perceptions resembles. As we are presented often with new external objects and stimuli, the use of language maximizes the efficiency of connecting with that object, reduces our ‘cognitive dissonance’ towards the object, and allows the internal mind to 'connect' to it. Because language and communication are so often used throughout the day, we are quite compelled to call on our inner perceptions to connect to external objects via language.
ReplyDeleteI believe that as human beings, in our current society, we are almost conditioned to believe and accept the fact that our perceptions resemble the objects we perceive because it is something we are conditioned to do as children and something that we continue to do all our lives. For example when you are teaching a child to associate certain objects or concepts with visual images or words you instantly create a link in the child’s mind. If a child sees a bird flying above their heads and they ask their parents what that is the parent will say that is a bird and so now every time the child hears the word bird they will see that image and vice versa. Unfortunately this does not explain how we go from one thing to the other like the word bird creating an image of a bird in our minds because there is nothing about the word “bird” that we can directly link to our perception of what a bird is. But yet still this is what happens constantly throughout our lives and so we can see why it is that we, as human beings, rely so heavily on our perceptions even though based on this fact and other points that Descartes brings to light that we cannot rely on these perceptions. Because as stated before there is no understandable link between the word “bird” and our perception of what a bird is, and this can lead us to doubt our perceptions of anything in the world that we understand through this linking processes.
ReplyDeleteAssuming the existence of a clear and defined "consciousness", Descarte's critique of semblance between objects in the outside world and our perceptions of them could be valid. According to his logic, there seems to be a missing factor in our perception through the senses of the extended objects that let us assume this resemblance.
ReplyDeleteOverall, i have to also agree with lowGrey's comment as well, because it would take an impractical amount of time and effort to really know things as they are down to the last detail if we chose the path of pure knowlege and not just a resemblance shortcut.
I have a problem with a two things in this argument; first, being that consciousness is not given much clarity as to what it means to be a sentient, conscious human being. Paintings of the surrealist influence, for example, may affect their viewers in different ways and let them perceive different objects within the works. To say that every human being has the same consciousness and assumes the same perceptual resemblance of the objects within the painting to the outside world would be problematic.
My second problem is that Descartes seems to want to establish that what our mind perceives in thought of an object, is in reality that particular extended object. Just because we can experience something using our senses and recollect that sensory perception does not mean that the object we are thinking about is supposed to resemble the actual existing object. The simplest example i can give of this is when a husband thinks he knows his wife based on all of his experiences beforehand, sensory or otherwise, that is until she cheats on him and he feels like he never actually knew the person he was married to. Or when a person thinks of a table they've seen before, if they examine the table close enough under a microscope, they will find out new ridges and changes in color within the details of the wood they never knew of before, therefore revising their perception of the table.
Let us acknowledge that the mind is a non-extended object. It is not hard to believe that a chair does not need my perception or consciousness to exist, given that, a chair is made of matter and matter existed before humanity existed.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the question of wether a "conscious perception must resemble the object percieved". Descartes shows that a tickle does not resemble the feather that causes the sensation, our perception is not that of the feathers or the softness of it, its color or quality. Moreover, is it not true that a feather has a soft nature? Could any other material which possess this quality cause a tickle on our nose?
The portrait resembles the person because it has qualities that approximate that person, even if the portrait has infinite points of view it still remains the portrait of that particular person. It is not the viewer that could be short sighted, drugged or have perfect vision but the portrait that remains the same no matter who views it.
Descartes’ desire to break free from the Scholastics leads him to argue that objects in themselves have no ability to cause one to have certain perceptions. Modern day natural science argues that perception starts when light hits the retina in the back of one’s eyes, which in turn sends neuronal signals to the brain, which then reconstructs into a mental image inside the brain. “Image” is in correspondence to the brain and the entire visual system. Descartes, however, believes that there is a significant difference between “image” and one’s idea of what that image is. Ideas, as Descartes may argue, are in correspondence with the mind and are purely non-physical. At what point can those of the physical world (i.e. light, sound, etc.) encounter the non-physical? It is not the case in which an object is perceived and the resulting image in the brain will cause a certain conceptual thought to form as to what that object is. It is not the case that I see a dog and the perceived image will cause me to believe that what I see is indeed a “dog” for the object (the dog) and the word “dog” have no resemblance whatsoever (The World…,31). Rather, Descartes believes that along with the term “dog”, we also have certain ideas that comes along with the term and thus creates a “concept.” This concept is then refined through seeing something and through a series of comparing and contrasting the features of the object with the features of the concept do we conclude that this “thing” is indeed a “dog”.
ReplyDeleteWe cling to the notion that perceptions resemble the objects perceived because humans beings have always been "cocky." We were created by God, and are loved by him. We are special because we have the dominion of most other life on earth. So, how could God not have given us the ability to perceive objects as they really are. I am not religious myself but if I were to attempt and think like a devout Christian, then I would think I was created perfectly. Let's suppose I am a scientist so it was God's plan. If I make an observation which God wants me to make, then why would it be flawed in any way?
ReplyDeleteI don't want to accept this argument either, because by accepting it I admit I know less about the world, I know little about already, and people have a tendency to accept comfortable ideas over reasonable ones. For a scientists that has gathered fame for his work, his social standing is at stake so he resists such a view.
The simplest answer is that most people don't read Descartes or think about questions to this extent, not that there is anything wrong with that.
I have always been fascinated with the birth of a child in the sense of how this child becomes connected with the world. We name a child not when it is in the womb but when it leaves the mother's womb and enters into the arms of its parents. The naming of the child is the first official mark of the baby's connectivity with the world. Our names define us, they are our soul's driving license branding us as a unique entity among civilization. Dale Carnegie says the sound of a person's name is the sweetest and most profound sound a person can hear. When one calls our name, we hear more than our name, we hear our mark, our brand. Descartes believes that our knowledge has to be razed to the ground, every fabric of our identity has to be disconnected from our being. How do we disconnect from our name, from our mark in this world? Yes, it is theoretically possible but when do we stop distinguishing the object from our perception? How far do we go according to Descartes? How far are we as people willing to go for the sake of knowledge and philosophy. Descartes would say the sky is the limit. This idea of object and perception, although profound has cosmological significance as this dichotomy aims at our very fabric of being. Splitting the sound of our name how it appears to us versus the mechanics of it is mesmerizing yet potentially dangerous as losing our sense of identity is more dangerous than we take for granted when studying this form of philosophy.
ReplyDeleteIn essence everything from the external world can be summed up as raw data. IE the glass owl on my desk is what my mind categorizes as an object to which has mass and takes up space, by way of my sensory perceptions. Now I know owls aren't made of glass nor do they perch on computer desks all day. I give it existence solely based on the notion that my eyes don't lie and every prior experience with glass and owls and there shapes hold true. But according Decartes they do. As much as one tries to prove things are the way they are, their is no real way of knowing.
ReplyDeleteLooking at it as a computer would "see" the glass owl,the object is perceived much the way a human being would. electrical signals sent from sensory organs sent to a "blackbox" so to speak to be processed/perceived. That being said Decartes proves his theory. what makes the data the computer and I see different is not the perceived but, my, your, the computers perception of it. As fallible or infallible this may be we hold onto the idea of what we see looks like and resembles what is being seen is egocentric. The owl has owl-like and glass-like qualities strictly because its what the collective conscience says it has.
I seriously question your claim that "every part of conscious existence is non-physical" given the advances in modern neuroscience and psychology. There seems to be a growing belief that physical elements in our brain makeup cause changes in our personalities and thought processes. The very existence of hormone regulating drugs that can aid in depression / anxiety / hyperactivity / etc seems to me to be in direct opposition to any such claims that all conscious existence in non-physical.
ReplyDeleteFurther, your use of the image of a portrait echoes Plato, who (admittedly, perhaps unsuccessfully) showed the causal relationship between an image and the object being imagined, so to speak. I understand how Descartes was challenging Aristotle, and thus also Plato / Socrates, but the metaphor of instantiations of the forms being like shadows on a wall is one that has always made sense to me.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDescartes certainly brings up a good point but he seems to be wanting an ideal of certainty or of knowledge itself. He seems to be leaning towards the view that the defining characteristics of humanity exist within the non-extended realm alongside pure and direct knowledge. He poses that there is no explanation of how the extended world makes an impression upon our consciousness. I do not agree however, that consciences exists solely within the mind. I think that the extended and non-extended realms comprise our consciences equally and without either, humanity would be something else entirely.
ReplyDelete