Subjective Reality To The Mind example essay topic

Daniel C. Dennet said in A Glorious Accident that, 'our minds -- if you like -- [are] just as real as our dreams' (Kayzer, 37). The implications of this statement are substantial, for if this is true -- if our minds and our consciousness are just dreams or the constructs of our brain, what we perceive, our memories, and our sense of reality are nothing more than illusions. Not only is this scientifically a valid statement, but it forces us to question who we are, and what we know. It is the latter that is of interest at this moment. What I wish to do in this essay is to tie together this concept of perception and the mind with what we have read in Text and Critics, as well as to discuss the need for science to find 'reality' and 'knowledge. ' But, first, we must understand what Dennet means by "our minds being as real as our dreams".

Dennet's point is profound and a point that should not be dismissed as a whim of a philosopher but, instead, a scientific reality -- not the construct of a man's subjective mind. One is led to believe that the best way to describe the mind as an illusion is to describe it in terms of dreams. When we sleep, our external sensory input is shut down. However, our minds, when we dream, are not in a very different state than when we are awake, other than as said before that our external sensory input is shut down. Thus, we can conclude that, our waking state is just as illusionary as our dreams, though with supplementary external sources of information. When dreaming, we obviously receive sensory input that enables our minds to create dreams with sights, sounds, touch, taste, emotions, experience, and sometimes even smell.

If there is no external sensory input, we must logically imply that it is coming from internal sources in the brain, the most obvious one being memory. Immediately, we can agree that memory is a subjective source of reality, as we can see in the ease in which memory fills in its missing gaps with often incorrect information (often influenced by our personal bias) as well as the ease in which memory can be altered or repressed and false memory can be created. So, immediately, by looking at S. Brown 2 dreams, we can see that one source of our perception is subject to all sorts of editing by the brain. While the subjectivity of the memories is most evident during the dream state, our memory is equally subjective and edited during the waking state. But while our dreams draw on memory as a source of sensory input, our minds, to a larger degree than when in a waking state, rely also on sensory input created by the brain such as sight, sound, smell, as well as emotions and consciousness to create an 'artificial' reality. We can conclude that when we dream, since all of our sensory input is internal (though sounds heard while dreaming can effect the construction of dreams) and created by the brain in order to fill in for absent external sensory input, that our dreams are in fact illusions, constructions of the brain.

This being so, while during a waking state we have supplementary external sensory input, it is being modified and interpreted by a brain that creates (like dreams) an illusion, a construction which we call the self / mind. Thus we must consider the mind as non veridical; what we see does not necessarily correspond with fact or reality; it is a creative story with no one to view it. The mind as an illusion gives ironic meaning to the humors maxim involving those who appear absent-minded: 'is anybody home?' For isn't the self nothing more than a projection? Further examples of the illusionary construction of our brain can be found through the use of psycho tropic drugs such as mescaline which alter the brain's chemical composition, allowing the mind to see images, sounds, and smells, that are in fact not real but constitute a subjective reality to the mind. It is the same with those who have psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia, where the brain creates hallucinogenic images which the mind accepts as being real and existing in the individual's spatial-temporal reality. It is often comforting to think of those individuals with such psychotic diseases to be the ones experiencing illusions, while we 'normal' people see what S. Brown 3 is real.

That, however, is a mistake -- our minds are as real as our dreams. While mainly describing the mind as illusion, it is also important to recognize that our brain has a limited range of external perception. We cannot see ultraviolet light like a bee, we cannot smell with the power of a dog, we cannot hear to the degree of a bat, and we completely lack the ability to perceive the world through electromagnetic fields as does a shark. Thus, we have only a narrow piece of or, rather, a window to reality.

Our brain also acts as a powerful editing machine to filter out what it (independent of the mind) determines (unconsciously) to be unnecessary information and, like in dreams, puts back together that information in such a way as the brain prescribes for that individual. Part of that filter or window to reality is our language and cultural values and assumptions. The very idea of self (or the Cartesian theater) is a product of our Western individualistic world view. It does not correspond with reality. Modern psychology, philosophy, and anthropology teach us that we are a species that does not perceive objectively and where upon entering the brain add on subjectivity, but rather that our assumptions, emotions, and culture are inseparable from our perception. What we perceive 'actively' and what " see' is inseparable from our values, assumptions, emotions, and culture.

A Jesuit priest, Fr. Rick Malloy, described the influence of culture on our perception, minds, and reality in the following:' You would not be you in a different culture. ' So, not only is our mind an illusion but the external input in which we rely on to be as objective as possible, is itself only a narrow selection of what is really out there, and that narrow selection is then edited and often cut. As to make things more confusing, what we in fact see and are aware of is to a large degree subjective and a product of culture -- what we see is determined by culture. In order to relate Kayzer and his character Dennet to the study of Western Philosophy, it S. Brown 4 is necessary to view his theories of a priori knowledge and empiricism as related to The Republic and Nicomachea n Ethics.

Socrates, in The Republic as well as in The Apology, Crito, and Phaedo, believes and argues that "all knowledge must be reached through pure reason"; all our senses are prone to subjectivity (especially, he argues in the Crito and Phaedo, susceptible to desire) and thus are completely unreliable. Socrates was well aware of our bias and the effects of culture on perception and hence he believed that reason would free us of our bias. Reason through mathematics, (especially Geometry) and Dialectic (the Socratic method), Socrates argues is the only way for there to be knowledge; the former relating to understanding and knowledge of thought-images such as cubes and the latter being know ledge of ideas and ideals such as beauty, justice, and the good through knowledge of their forms. Through pure reason, Socrates says, we can have objective knowledge of these forms. Socrates, however, is wrong to assume that: 1) we can only have a priori knowledge and 2) that reason and logic are both perfect and independent of empiricism and that, in fact, the mind is capable of pure reason.

Socrates was clearly unaware of the many assumptions and bias that reside in us. There is no place inside the human mind / brain that is free of our culture, assumptions, and bias -- there is no pure reason in the human mind. Aristotle realized that pure reason was a fallacy and is easily filled with subjective assumptions. Aristotle argues that "in order to reason we must first learn or gather information from our senses" (Irwin, 148, 6.12).

In essence, before we can reason and make the assumptions in which reason and logic are based, we must first understand how the universe operates so as not to have false assumptions -- we must show are assumptions to be true. We must first know why and that such-and-such is, in fact, the way the universe operates. In other words, S. Brown 5 we need science in order to have knowledge of what is 'necessary and eternal'. Aristotle argues that the mistake of Socrates is that by relying on pure reason, he disregards how the universe actually functions and is therefore left to blunder through life without 'excellence in deliberation " and 'correctness of thought'. Thus, while Socrates' reason and logic may be sound, it is not based on what is known empirically, thus leading him to make false and incorrect conclusions (for instance false assumptions of human nature). But, in fact, Socrates' logic, regardless of his assumptions, is often flawed as Gregory Vlas tos argues (Plato, xxii).

Other philosophers such as Immanuel Kant in his books Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morality, Critique of Pure Reason, and Critique of Practical Reason also disagree with Socrates that we can have only a priori knowledge on the grounds that pure reason alone is ineffective in the gathering of knowledge and also that the mind is subjective, not objective, and, thus, incapable of pure reason. Donna Jowett states that "we can not gain objective knowledge from pure reason, it requires empiricism / science to be intertwined with reason and logic to support it, keep it in check, and make sure that the foundations of reason and logic are, in fact, valid. With empiricism and reason we can have knowledge and find reality" (Sept 22, 1999). If we are to follow, as was written earlier, that our mind is an illusion of the brain and therefore subjective, we come into conflict with Socrates' belief of a priori knowledge. We must instead take the view of Aristotle, Kant, and science.

The conflict is a simple one: the mind is subjective and reason / logic is objective. For the mind to have pure reason, it must be objective and without emotion and desire and influence of culture or we can never know for sure whether our reason and logic is indeed sound and objective. In order to be sure whether or not our logic and reason (thus knowledge) is sound and objective, we must be able to show that it is S. Brown 6 not at variance with what actually is. We must know what is 'eternal and necessary'.

We cannot rely on assumptions of how we believe the world to be, otherwise we are living a subjective reality -- a reality that is not based on how the universe actually exists, but only as we perceive it. Can we completely eliminate the bias of our perceptual apparatus, language and culture? No! We have no perfect tool to make objective observations, although science is our best available tool. Is it also a product of our subjective minds? Yes.

Is it also an illusion of our minds and culture? Yes. But while imperfect, science is the best tool we have to try to disregard assumptions, faulty reason, culture, and to, in an objective manner distinguish between perception and reality. In order to separate our own subjectivity and perception from observation and to do away with assumptions, we need an objective observer, an observer that is independent of our minds and human nature. The manner in which we do this is to use the scientific method. The scientific method gives us an objective tool in which we can observe and draw conclusions about the universe without allowing our own human subjectivity, perception, and bias to interfere.

Weare not relying on our subjective and limited senses and we are not relying on pure reason and logic of a subjective mind to provide us with knowledge of reality. Instead, through science, we make use of both reason, logic, and empiricism instead of choosing one extreme. We make a hypothesis using reason and logic or have an assumption based on reason, but, instead of making that assumption a conclusion, as with pure reason, we continue on and test that hypothesis or assumption and see if it is consistent with observation and experimentation (through double blind studies, the use of controls, and so on. ). If the result of our observation and experimentation does not follow what we know about how the universe works, we know our reasoning, hypothesis, or S. Brown 7 assumption is false and that we have come to an objective conclusion.

By using the scientific method, we are able to come to a more objective view of reality, with as little interference from human perception as possible. 'Our minds -- if you like -- [are] just as real as our dreams. ' How true and amazing and simple this quote is and how powerful it is in our understanding of how we think and perceive and view reality. The maxim of 'is anybody home?' is ironically true. Our mind is an illusion, a projection of a fallible brain and, thus, our mind and its products are fallible. If only it were as simple as Socrates thought to gain objective knowledge through pure reason.

But, Socrates was, unfortunately, wrong in thinking that the only way to gain knowledge is to disregard our senses and rely on pure reason. He was right, though, to say that we can not depend on our external senses (sight, sound, smell, touch, taste). This being so, how can we gather knowledge, or even have any concept of reality? Even though we may say that 'seeing is believing' we can't trust our external senses, as they will be edited and altered by the brain and we can't rely on pure reason, since our mind is incapable of it. We must also remember that what we see and perceive, even before being edited by the brain, is drastically affected by culture. Thus, we must find an alternative, an information gathering tool that is objective and separate from human prejudice and subjectivity and one that can draw accurate and objective conclusions about how the universe functions in order to find, as Aristotle proclaims, what is 'eternal and necessary'.

Science is currently the best tool we have to do this. Itis fortunate for humanity that we have been able to find such a tool that can give us any sense of an objective look at our universe and a view of reality that is more than our assumptions.