To the guest reader

Saturday 20 August 2011

B: The World

It's early morning.  The light is just beginning to show in the sky outside my window.  A bird perched somewhere in the tree below greets the day with its delicate call.  Man has several names for this bird and this tree in various languages, and science has names for them in Latin which identify their genus and species.  I don't know these names, but then neither do the bird or the tree.  These names were not affixed to them by nature, but rather by man.  However, these names do identify genuine natural realities about them.  The words "bird" and "tree" signify them as something distinct from one another, and their particular names signify their distinctions from others of their type.  If it is a sparrow in the tree, we call it so in English because it possesses those attributes in common with birds of the type "sparrow", and in contrast to the attributes of another bird which we would call a "blue jay."  It has possessed these defining attributes for millennia before mankind affixed these attributes with the name "sparrow", for millennia before there even was such a thing as man, and it was certainly long, long before man began to be confused by himself and to doubt himself and to doubt the world and to ask, "Where is this 'sparrowness'?  Is it real?  Is it in the bird somewhere?  Could I find it if I cut the bird open?"  But the sparrow has gone on, simply being what it is, contentedly singing the unique song sung only by sparrows, oblivious to the sweet, simple, and breathtakingly obvious answer it's providing to our question.

At this hour there is very little traffic passing by on the road below.  The road and the vehicles that travel on it are creations of man.  They were ideas conceived in the mind of man, and turned into physical realities by shaping and manipulating matter, giving it the form and function designed by the human mind.  These things stand as a testimony, as evidence of the co-operation between reality and the mind.  The matter involved behaves according to physical laws, and the people who designed these things were able to do so because they discovered these laws, they believed these laws, and they shaped the material involved in such a way that they would be able to use these laws to their advantage.  The car travels on the road because of the laws of motion, of thermodynamics, of combustion, and many more besides.  If these laws were simply the invention of man, or if they existed solely as a fantasy in the mind of man, or if they had no relation to physical reality outside the mind of man, then the matter involved in the car and road would behave completely indifferently to these laws.  They would slump like stubborn horses refusing to stir as man struggles at the reigns of his desires.  They would sit rotting in a field as useless heaps of junk.  For they themselves are objects which lie outside the mind of man and beyond its direct control.  The fact that the car works stands as proof of the accuracy of man's concepts of these laws.  Like the bird and the tree, man has named these laws, man has studied these laws and formulated theories about them, man has designated them by the general word "laws" because of his confidence in his own ideas about them, but the functions and relationships between physical matter that they designate are genuine realities.  And again like the bird, these functions and relationships existed long before man discovered them, long before man existed.  "Nature", Francis Bacon said, "to be commanded, must be obeyed."  The car drives by as elegant proof of this.

As the car passes, its sound increases in pitch as it approaches me, and then abruptly switches to a low pitch as it goes by and speeds off in the other direction.  This is called "The Doppler Effect", and it is a peculiarity of my perception.  The sound of the vehicle never actually changes, but yet this effect is not entirely an illusion either.  It is a relationship between my ear, the speed of the vehicle relative to me, my position relative to the vehicle, and the compression and decompression of the sound waves as they travel the distance between the car and me.  There are a number of such peculiarities.  These are not delusions or unrealities, but rather consequences of my perspective on the world.  The way the information of the world reaches my senses and my mind is itself part of the world, and it too behaves natural law.  Like the Doppler Effect, these things can be discovered, scrutinized, and studied as part of the reality with which we all have to deal.

Sometimes these peculiarities have led man astray, and such an example is appearing now just over the trees.  In casual speech we still say the sun is rising, but by now it is common knowledge that the Earth is turning to meet the sun.  It is true that I have no first hand verification of this fact, and that I'm forced to take other people's word for it.  It is possible that mankind is in error about this "common knowledge", or that a vast number of people have lied to me about it all my life.  But when I consider the evidence that the human race as a whole claims to possess on the matter, my mind is set at ease on the issue of error.  When I consider the number of people that would have to be involved in a "lie", various world governments, various space programs, phone companies, GPS manufactures, astronomers...well, the list goes on....I'm persuaded to accept this "word" as honest in the face of the alternative.  I'm confronted frequently by such situations, most of them not as clear cut and easy to decide on.  I weigh the available information, consider the agendas of the source, consider its fidelity to other information, and consider how much internal sense it makes unto itself.  It may not be the most solid foundation to decide what one believes in, but given the limits of my own first-hand experience, it's the best that I can do if I hope to learn anything beyond the limits of my own life and the things that I personally witness.  I am not omniscient, nor do I claim to be, nor do I believe anyone else can claim to be.  It is always possible that I am mistaken, or that I have been misled.  But I believe that the truth is constant, regardless of my wanderings.  I have seen Saturn through the lens of my own telescope, and I have seen that Venus has phases like our moon.  This is valuable corroboration of what I've been told, as well as an awe-inspiring experience.  There's nothing quite like seeing it for yourself.

Although I must occasionally rely on my fellow man for factual information, it is not through man that this information is fact.  Whatever the actual relationship between the sun and Earth, or the actual nature of anything else for that matter, the facts of these things exist without regard to whether they are known or believed by ten or ten million people.  I may rely on my fellow man in my belief that the world is round, but if the world is round, it is not out of respect to the opinions of men.  For thousands of years, man believed that the Earth was flat, and the world stayed round in absolute indifference to that belief.  When Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth by comparing a shadow made by the sun at Alexandria with a shadow made by the sun in Egypt, the truth of the round Earth was waiting there to be discovered, outside of the ignorance of man.  When Copernicus discovered that the Earth went round the sun, the rest of mankind was still in the dark, scratching their heads over retrograde motion.  If facts existed entirely through men, then the entire history of science would just be men making things up and then selling the rest of mankind on the idea in order to make it fact.  It was the evidence presented by Copernicus and Eratosthenes that changed the minds of man, not the minds of man which changed the evidence.  The power of consensus is in its persuasiveness, not in its control over reality.  How can I know this for sure?  Another car drives by, reminding me of the physical laws by which it operates, reminding me of man's cooperation with those laws as facts beyond themselves, reminding that the inventions of man have often worked in defiance of consensus and the general faith of the population.

If I decide to trust in my fellow man, not as the determiners of my reality, but rather as fellow travelers seeking to discover its true objective nature, then I am able to gaze with them beyond our solar system, beyond our galaxy, and out to a distance of 14 billion light years in any direction.  This is not believed to be the limits of our universe, but it is the limit of what we can see.  We believe that this is so, because we believe that the universe came into being 14 billion years ago, and light from anywhere beyond that hasn't had time to reach us.  This last idea is bit controversial back here on Earth, it challenges what many other people believe, and leads to a lot of arguments along the frontiers of what we know, and what we are capable of knowing.  But like my sparrow, the universe goes on, placidly indifferent to the conflicts and confusion of man.  It is what is.  Whole stars are born and die out without man ever setting eyes on them, possibly without anyone ever setting eyes on them.  They burn just fine without the fuel of being seen.

So, this is the world as I find it.  My confidence in it begins with me, with my first-hand experience and with the rational conclusions that I have drawn from that experience.  I extend that confidence to the experiences, the explorations, the discoveries, and the ideas of my fellow man, depending on what degree I'm willing to trust them and how much I concur with their conclusions.  But I believe that the world out there beyond me and the facts of that world exist without regard for my confidence, or my confidence in my fellow man, or their own confidence in what they think they know.  I believe that the world out there is what it is regardless of what I think I know about it, or what anyone else thinks they know about it.  First-hand experience has convinced me of that much at least.  The world has demonstrated its constancy to me time and again.  I go to sleep, and reawaken and the world shows every evidence of having gone on steadily without my knowledge.  The world has cut me and bruised me many times to prove its solid existence.  It has often frustrated my efforts and at other times it has rewarded them in turn to demonstrate its indifference to my whims and wishes, and its obedience to my cooperation with its facts.

My understanding of the world begins here with me, in this room.  I can doubt the things I've been told about it.  I can doubt my own conclusions that I've drawn about it.  But I can not doubt the world itself.  I can not doubt the foundation of it, which begins for me with my immediate experience.  It could be said that I have no grounds for believing in this world, but yet I have no grounds for doubting it either.  The world itself transcends belief and doubt, because the grounds for those things have to be found in the world.

Suppose I do try to doubt the world.  I reject the world wholesale as it begins for me here in this room.  I try to flee from it through a door marked "doubt."  I find that this door opens onto this same room, and it returns me right back to the world, searching for the grounds with which to justify this doubt.  I dismiss this world as a dream, and again I try the door hoping it will return me to waking reality.  I find myself right back in this room facing the world which provides me with no evidence that I am asleep or that there is any "waking" world beyond this one.  I defiantly declare that the world is an illusion unto itself, and I flee again through the door, only to find myself dumped again on the solid floor of this room, the world showing me no distinction between physical matter and the illusion of physical matter.

As a thinking being, it is my privilege to keep insisting on trying that door for the rest of my life if I like, to perpetuate my attempt at doubt indefinitely, but I can not escape the fact that that door will always return me right back to this room.  It is not that I have grounds for believing in the world.  It is not that I have a reason to believe in the world.  It is simply that the world is inescapable.  My only choice is between the futility of trying that door over and over, or embracing the world as I find it, as it begins here with my immediate experience in this room.  Only by embracing the world can I leave this room, to explore it, to learn about it, to understand it, and to experience it.                                          

22 comments:

  1. Yes, but what you and I call the World is an idea. If we were birds or insects we would have a very different idea of its reality. The migrating bird might feel things very strongly which help it keep to a route. The world that the insect sees is conditional upon the position and construction of its eyes.

    According to our perceptions, birds and insects can be deceived. Their world is entirely shaped by their needs. You can lure a male cuckoo by issuing the sound of a female cuckoo.

    In the same way, the world we perceive is dependent on the senses we possess, the messages they send, the capacity of our brains and the needs and urges that drive forward our human existences.

    Reality, I claim, is contingent on the observer.

    The idea of some underlying true reality tends to come from science, such as various branches of physics. Not everyday experience. Some people, ignorant of science, might see ghosts, and the spirits of trees, in some manner, and have no notion of the moon having two sides.

    Are you saying that Western science is the guardian of reality’s content?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Reality, I claim is contingent on itself. It needs no "guardian" It seems we've reached an impasse.

    As for science, I just heard another car go by.

    That's...

    science: 3
    tree people: 0

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way, speaking of science in a condescending tone doesn't invalidate it anymore than closing your eyes makes the world disappear.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You talk about belief and doubt, as if these were the issues. Yes of course we believe in the world, and all the details, like the ones that you have shared in your lyrical description.

    But the lyrical description is different from the molecular one, which is different from the subatomic one, and so on. Many of the scientific truths or elements of reality are invisible without the aid of instruments, or mathematics, or experiments. Many of the beauties of nature are invisible to those who are dysfunctional in some way. Take them to a wilderness of birds and flowers and they will freak out.

    So we can generalize and say yes, there is a world. But it isn’t one world. It’s a myriad worlds, each different, each coming from a different mind at a different moment.

    For the various human purposes that have been devised over the ages, the myriad different pictures have to be normalised by ignoring aspects of it. The entomologist isn’t looking at whether or not an insect is beautiful, scary or dangerous.not. The non-entomologist may not see anything else.

    So I expect all of us sane humans probably agree there is a world outside of us, an objective world. But we don’t all agree what it is.

    Can you say authoritatively whether there is a right way to see reality, and where that authority comes from?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Where have I spoken in condescending tone of science?

    ReplyDelete
  6. As for the birds and insects, yes they see the world differently than we do. They have their own "peculiarities of perception" just as we have ours (although I'm assuming we all experience The Doppler Effect.) But that doesn't mean that there isn't a common reality beyond these perceptions.

    For instance, dogs can hear sounds and scents beyond the range of our senses, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist beyond our range, or even beyond the range of the dog.

    You keeping insisting on equating reality with perception and all your arguments proceed on the basis of that assumption in order to prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Or else I'm just completely misunderstanding you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. My latest blog post, by the way, speaks of what we are doing on this site. Here's a short quote from it:

    I want to understand it all, not as a scientist, for that requires a specialized way of looking at things, but just as a human with time to stand and stare.

    My point is this that in talking about reality I don't want to look merely with the privileged eyes of someone living in 2011. I don't think reality has essentially changed in the last 10,000 years, say.

    The fact is, I am not a scientist, and don't have to be one in order to speak of reality. To be human is enough, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  9. And no, I can't speak with absolute authority about what reality is. I don't think that anyone can. I said as much in the post above. But I believe that reality exists beyond anyone's "authority."

    ReplyDelete
  10. I am insisting on certain points for a reason, and not just to be argumentative.

    Reality is a concept, populated in the first instance by instinct and perception.

    To say that it just is, like something that's there waiting for us to stumble upon it, is to make a decision. You have made that decision. I assume you have made that decision because it simplifies the technological, scientific rational view of the world. I am not being condescending in saying that. I don't mean to say that those things don't matter enormously to us today.

    But I see that it is possible to make a different decision: one which helps all the ideas that man has ever had fit in and take their place, not to be derided but respected, so long as they are not knowingly fraudulent and false, or so long as they are not harmful to humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, you are entitled to your belief, of course. I am only saying that other beliefs are possible.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Of course, I'm not a scientist either. I bring science in, not as an authority on reality, but as a field which I believe is the most honest in its approach to it, and because that honesty has produced undeniable results, and as a demonstration of the Bacon quote above, "Nature to be commanded must be obeyed." Which means that one has to work with reality in order to achieve results, not stand back from reality going, "Ha ha. You wouldn't exist without me." Let's see how far that gets you.

    But I don't need science to prove this to me. I refer to science because it provides examples that we're all familiar with. I have plenty of personal examples. Take something as simple as not putting gas in my car. I don't need to know all the scientific intricacies of the internal combustion engine to know that if I don't put gas in the car, reality is going to bite me in the ass. This isn't God punishing me. This isn't the illusions of my mind punishing me. This is simply my failure to deal with reality coming back to haunt me. Suppose the gas gauge is broken (I had a car like that actually), and I can't perceive the gas getting low. Reality completely unseen in the darkness of my tank will quite abruptly assert itself on my the moment that tank runs dry. This is all the proof I need.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Right, good example of one kind of reality. I have kept the company of people who believed you could actually run on empty. It is true that their illusions sometimes punished them. But sometimes there must have been some kind of reserve tanks they didn't know about, giving the illusion of magic, for which there is a universal human thirst. This is how magicians earn their living, to provide the thrill of it, and conceal the trickery that's involved.

    Science has been very effective in combating superstition, I'll grant you. But sometimes too effective.

    I meant to say I must stop for the night now. But I'll leave you with one thought.

    The example you chose related to the objective world, no doubt about that.

    But we don't dwell in the objective world all the time. Consciousness embraces so much besides in which it is not possible (or desirable) to know what is objectively real or only subjectively.

    I'm less interested in what makes cars stop running. Much more interested in what makes a person break down, when doctors find no biological cause.

    Good night!

    ReplyDelete
  14. And despite my belligerent tone, I do appreciate what you are trying to do...to some degree. I don't agree with it necessarily, but I do appreciate it.

    However, I obviously question some of the ideas by which you are approaching it. I can't speak for the Eastern religions, but it seems to me that most Western religions very much believe in an objective reality. They may not but much stock in reason or the scientific approach to that reality, but they certainly believe that their faith is solid facts or THE TRUTH, as we were discussing the other day.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Also, I know you're fast asleep by now, but sooner or later you'll get around to reading this.

    Aside from this debate over the subjective or objective nature of reality (which we could go back and forth on endlessly), and aside from what you think of the other ideas I put forward in this post, I wanted to know what you thought of my "inescapable room" solution to the problem of fundamental metaphysical doubt, which addresses the problem without recourse to faith OR reason? I know that perhaps it's not relevant to these issues we're hashing over, but it was of personal importance to me. I didn't feel like these other issues could be addressed until the world itself was firmly established. To be honest, it has haunted me for a long time. Like I said the other day, I put aside doubt a long time ago, but I never felt that I completely resolved it. Something always lingered in the back of my mind. It bugged me that there seemed no way to get further than Descartes' cogito ergo sum and be on really solid ground. It seemed like something you just had to forget about and move on, assume the world was real. Then we started this project, and it dug all that up again. I knew that I had to find a way to move firmly forward from the cogito if I was to have any confidence that any of this was rooted in a solid foundation. You can see from my first preliminary note how I was going round in circles with the idea. Then this morning I felt like I had an epiphany, "I don't have to prove the world exists, because the world is inescapable! Only the world itself can give me grounds to doubt it, in which case, it wouldn't be the world as a whole in doubt, but only some illusion I have of part of it. I would still have to accept at the very least the piece of the world that provided the evidence of this doubt, and all the foundations of that piece. So it's impossible that this piece of doubt could shake the foundation of immediate experience, since it would have to arise out of it. And I can't doubt the world entirely. Doing that would only refer me immediately back to the world. I can only push out and through to more world."

    Anyway, maybe this wasn't an issue to anyone but me, but like I said, it was of personal importance. It has given me (at least to my satisfaction) philosophical grounds to venture forward from the cogito, expanding it at least to the domain of immediate first-hand experience.

    It is not, I suppose, "proof" of the world, at least not as we typically understand it....and yet at the same time it is proof. It's just...something else entirely. It reminds me of that dream I had where I kept doubling back through the same town. It'll take time to grapple with the implications of this, but whatever else you think of my other ideas, I really believe I'm on to something with this.

    So what do think? (And I'll cross my fingers, hoping I don't regret asking.)

    ReplyDelete
  16. Just taking a peek at your thing about the Western religions. I want to draw a distinction between religion - what goes on in churches with pastors and Popes - and theology over the last 2000 years. I am generally against religion as much as you are. But I uphold the right to have some kind of theology, and certainly what James calls "religious experience". Of this more, some time.

    ReplyDelete
  17. No, I hope you won't regret asking. I scribbled all kinds of stuff in a reply, but I want to give your epiphany the respect it deserves, and brood till I understand it better, & respond more sweetly in a new post.

    ReplyDelete
  18. By the way, I had a dream last night which gave me a good example with which to address this issue of perception and reality. It was a fairly mundane dream. I was just discussing with my brother how they make 3D televisions.

    Now someone could say, "Well, you're not really seeing the TV in 3D. They just overlay two different frames, slightly off center from each other and then give you some glasses which filter out one frame for each eye. This 'tricks' your brain with the illusion of depth." The thing is, you really are seeing the image in 3D. This is the reality of your perception, like the Doppler Effect. What they're talking about is how the TV manufacturer creates this perception of depth with a flat surface. So the depth you think you perceive on the screen is an illusion, but the fact that you're being 'tricked' into perceiving it is a reality.

    Now, you might be thinking this proves your point, but there's more. If perception = reality, then no one would ever be able to step outside of perception to study the realities by which it operates. No one would ever be able to design a TV which tricks your perception if they couldn't rise above all that and understand reality beyond that.

    I return again The Doppler Effect. This is the way I hear the sound, but I can also understand the mechanisms by which I hear it that way. I can understand my perception as part of a larger reality outside of the perspective from which I perceive it. Otherwise The Doppler Effect would fool me every time. I would never be able to get beyond it.

    Another example would be air shimmering over a hot surface. I know that the matter I see beyond the air over the hot surface isn't melting and undulating. I know that the changes in air pressure are creating that illusion. I know that there is a reality beyond what I'm seeing.

    So we return to the issue of depth. Out here in the real world we perceive depth by the same mechanisms which the 3D TV tricks us into perceiving it. Yet we know that the depth we're perceiving in the world is real. The TV is taking advantage of the mechanisms of our perception to trick our eyes, but out here in the world those mechanisms are perceiving actual depth. The coffee cup sits here on my desk. One eye sees it in one position. The other eye sees it in another. My brain performs some quick geometry to unify these images and triangulate their disparity in order to perceive the cup's actual distance from me. This is the reality of my perception, but there is also the reality that the cup is in an actual world with actual depth. Again, if we couldn't understand perception as part of a larger reality, then we couldn't design TVs that could simulate this process.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I’ll respond to this in my forthcoming piece entitled “The World (revisited)”!

    ReplyDelete
  20. I’ve cancelled plans to produce a piece called “The World (revisited)”. I’ve been falling into the same old adversarial trap that I renounced before, with Bryan’s concurrence, if I remember right.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So to reassure you on the inescapable room, I accept it. And your points about the 3D TV.

    ReplyDelete