Your Own Perceptions Of Reality example essay topic

He who confronts the paradoxical exposes himself to reality. -- Friedrich Durrenmatt Reality is the actuality of things, what is really happening, without interpretation. Perception is that interpretation of the experience. Let's say for example that the reality of things may be that you are in a room with people talking very loudly. But perhaps your perception may be that these people are obnoxious and rude. This would be your interpretation of the situation.

And so such is the nature of our perception of reality. Our perceptions also get us into trouble with each other, because each of our perceptions is different, and yet we believe they are the same. We often believe that others have the same view as we do. Then we base our reality on that idea, and get ourselves into predicaments.

If we would only realize that we all have our different perceptions, and that reality is often something entirely different, we would not have so many conflicts. I can know the existence of other minds by supposing that the behaviour of others stands in a relation to sensations which is analogous to the relation in which my behaviour stands to my own sensations. [Mill, J.S. (Ed. Priestly, F.E.L. ).

(1963) Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. Prentice-Hall: Toronto] When we look at something from a reality standpoint, we see things for what they really are, without the human associations and interpretations. It just is what it is. As soon as we attach emotions, feelings, thoughts, associations, etc... then we change the reality into our perception. This perception isn't reality anymore. Now, is it really real out there?

Do objects, you, I, and other physical paraphernalia really exist outside our minds? Are objects or even our thoughts an illusion? We are sometimes deceived; therefore we could always be deceived! Have you ever thought you heard something, but there was nothing there? Have you ever thought you saw someone in the corner of your eye, and when you looked there was no person there? Have you ever looked at an illusion and been deceived that one line was longer than the other, but really it wasn't?

When you look down from a high building on people, do they appear small like ants? Aren't there thousands of occasions when we do miss-perceive? If we are wrong on some occasions, for example, from a height people look the size of ants, is it not possible that we are always deceived? Logical necessity requires the answer: Yes, to this question.

It is possible that things as we perceive them are not that way at all! LOGIC-SCIENTIFIC PERCEPTION OF REALITY: If we are concerned with: The purpose of life... What we should be doing on Earth... The meaning of life and death...

Then the issue of reality and the true nature of our existence is crucial. If things are different from how they are presented to us conventionally, then this is very basic to our quest. Let's say they do, and let's be scientific. How do you know something is really out there?

We know things are there because: Light hits the retina of the eye... And this changes the chemical composition of the eye... Right? And this makes electricity travel along a nerve, the Optic Nerve... And this goes to a part of the brain... And then something happens and we see the thing...

That's what happens according to science... According to science: We do not respond to the thing, but to electrical and chemical events in the brain. So, do we really respond to a thing? Don't we respond only the electrical and chemical events that occur in the brain and nerves, and not to the alleged real object? Therefore, it is not things we are experiencing but chemical and electrical reactions. We don't see things directly.

We see via chemical and electrical reactions in eyes, nerves and bits of brain. This appears to be true because: Without eyes, we don't see... Without Optic Nerves we don't see... Without certain bits of the brain, we don't see... So we never directly see what is out there, according to science. Suppose someone were to put electrodes in our brains and stimulate the visual part of our brains mimicking the impulses we normally receive.

Would we see? Definitely we would. But we wouldn't be seeing what is there outside. We wouldn't be seeing what is real. We'd be seeing because some electricity was put in our brain, and it would look the same as our real objects! How do we know the science is true?

Of course we can observe, but science tells us that we don't directly experience objects... and just as we could be deceived by a wicked scientist putting electrodes in our brains, we could be deceived, in the same way, into thinking that science was 'real. ' Therefore, isn't it true that if we accept this scientific account then we cannot be certain that anything exists out there because we can never directly perceive it? Strangely, if this scientific theory is true we cannot prove it, because we can never perceive anything directly, so we do not know how and from where the experience came into our minds. Even our knowledge of eyes, nerves, bits of brain, is not direct but via electrical and chemical events in our brain!

We experience electromagnetic waves, not as waves, but as images and colours. We experiment vibrating objects, not as vibrations, but as sounds. We experiment chemical compounds dissolved in air or water, not as chemicals, but as specific smells and tastes. Colours, sounds, smells and tastes are products of our minds, built from sensory experiences. [Bloom, F.E. and Lazer son, A. (1998), Brain, Mind and Behaviour. W.H. Freeman: New York] SENSORY PERCEPTION OF REALITY: In the olden days, we thought that there were objects, material things, such as bricks, trees, mountains and goats, which were themselves real and constant in a way independent of our looking and otherwise perceiving them. These were things that had primary qualities that did not change and other qualities, sometimes called secondary qualities, which were our reaction to the primary object, and which did change depending on sensory perception.

These secondary qualities were colours, sounds, tastes, shape, etc. No thinker suggested that the actual object had these qualities. They were qualities we gave to objects. For example, a rose might look red to us, but if no one was looking at it, we couldn't really say it was red. We might have said it had the power to elicit the colour red in our minds, but this primary quality of being able to elicit the red colour is simply the manifestation of sensory visualization correlating itself with our perception of a rose. Similarly in this way the rest of our senses are also influenced by the secondary qualities which are defined by their relationship to human perceives.

Primary qualities are innately inseparable from their subjects: their cannot be a body without a shape or a size, as their cannot be a body without smell or taste. Secondary qualities on the other hand are but a power to produce sensations in us. John Locke, a pre-eminent philosopher of the 17th century agrees in that he claims that the vehicle of the power to produce ideas in us is nothing but the primary qualities of the object which has the power. He further states that secondary qualities are powers which are not exercised save when qualities are perceived.

The statement that secondary qualities are powers to produce sensations in human beings can be verified by the fact that sensations produced by the same object will vary with circumstances: For example, lukewarm water will appear cold to a hot hand and hot to a cold hand; colours also tend to look very different when viewed under a microscope. Of course in order to perceive it is also the meanings of the words of our language consisted in their relation to impressions and ideas. It is evident, that the idea of existence is nothing different from the idea of any object, and that when after the simple conception of any thing we would conceive it as existent, we in reality make no addition to or alteration on our first idea. [Ans combe, G.E.M., (1981). Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind, Oxford Univ. Press: Oxford] REALITY IN EXISTENCE OF THE SELF: Rene Descartes has been one of the most profound influences in metaphysical and analytical philosophy.

He insisted that the first task for the philosopher is to rid himself of all prejudice by calling in doubt all that can be doubted. This gives epistemology, the methodical study of what we can know and how we can know it. The second task of the philosopher according to Descartes, having now raised these doubts, is to prevent them from leading to skepticism. This strategy is clearly stated in Descartes' Meditations.

Here are some extracts from the First Meditation in which skeptical doubts are raised: What I have so far accepted as true par excellence, I have got either from the senses or by means of the senses. Now I have sometimes caught the senses deceiving me; and a wise man never entirely trusts those who have once cheated him. [Descartes, R. (tr. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., Murphy, D. & Kenny, A. ), (1985). The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Wiley: Cambridge] In an argument concerning the nature of truth and the corollary of the existence of a Creator in accordance with the Devil, the source of illusion and irrationality - Descartes states: I will suppose, then, not that there is a supremely good God, the source of truth; but that there is an evil spirit, who is supremely powerful and intelligent, and does his utmost to deceive me. I will suppose that sky, air, earth, colours, shapes, sounds and all external objects are mere delusive dreams, by means of which he lays snares for my credulity.

I will consider myself as having no hands, no eyes, no flesh, no blood, no senses, but just having a false belief that I have all these things. I will remain firmly fixed in this meditation, and resolutely take care that, so far as in me lies, even if it is not in my power to know some truth, I may not assent to falsehood nor let myself be imposed upon by that deceiver, however powerful and intelligent he may be. All these doubts of Descartes finally come to an end when he produces his famous argument to his own existence -- However much the evil genius may deceive him, it can never deceive him into thinking that he exists when he does not: Undoubtedly I exist if he deceives me; let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing while I am thinking that I am something. A reiteration of this statement would be -- 'I exist' cannot be true when thought of; but it has to be thought of to be doubted; once this is seen it is indubitable.

COGITO ERGO SUM (I THINK, THEREFORE I AM): Descartes' argument is usually presented in the terser form in which he elsewhere usually presents it: Cogito Ergo Sum: 'I think, therefore I exist. ' With these few words he brings his doubt to an end, from these few words he seeks to discover the nature of his own essence, to demonstrate the existence of God (in which we shall not delve into), and to provide the criterion to guide the mind in it's search for truth. Descartes conclusion is that he is a thing which thinks, a conscious being: There is thought: of this and this only I cannot be deprived. I am, I exist; that is certain. For how long? For as long as I am thinking; maybe if I wholly ceased to think, I should at once wholly cease to be.

For the present I am admitting only what is necessarily true, with this qualification, no more than a thinking thing. Later Descartes concludes: My essence consists solely in the fact that I am a thinking thing. DREAMS, ILLUSIONS AND OTHER REALITIES: Confucius and you are both dreams and I who say you are dreams am dream myself. This is a paradox. -- Chuang Tse: II Let us suppose that is it possible, or at least conceivable that you are just dreaming at this moment, that you are still asleep in bed, dreaming about reading my research paper.

How would you convince yourself that this is not true, that you are indeed awake? This question encompasses one of the most fundamental mysteries of philosophy and the science of psychology in general i.e. How can one make oneself believe whether or not one is asleep and dreaming when in all appearances one is awake. Conversely though one may ask as to how one can convince oneself that one is dreaming when to a person his dreams seem reality. The answer really all comes down to one of belief. Everyone knows the difference between imagining a thing and believing in its existence, between supposing a proposition and acquiescing in its truth. In the case of such a belief, the object apprehended by the mind is held to have reality.

Belief is therefore the mental state of cognizing that reality. The human mind, our very own, at the very fundamental level works by way of the stimuli received by our nerves and senses and conveyed to it by the neurons by virtue of which it processes these receptions in line with our own mode of reasoning... and it is indeed here that the true glory of thought and philosophy truly is unveiled. For whatever the mind then perceives as real indeed truly does become so according to our own plane of perception and reasoning - all in all reality is whatever your mind wants it to be which of course translates into whatever you want it to be, for I believe that the mind does not control you but in fact you control the mind and hence your own perceptions of reality as well. I say, then, that belief is nothing but a more vivid, lively, forcible, firm, steady conception of an object than the imagination alone is ever able to attain. It consists not in the peculiar nature or order of the ideas, but in the manner of their conception and in their feeling to the mind. I confess that it is impossible perfectly to explain this feeling or manner of conception... it's true and proper name... is belief, which is a term that everyone sufficiently understands in common life.

And in philosophy we can go no farther than assert that belief is something felt by the mind, which distinguishes the idea of the judgment from the fictions of the imagination. It gives them more weight and influence; makes them appear of greater importance; enforces them in the mind; gives them superior influence on the passions, and renders them the governing principle in our actions. [Hume, D., (Ed. Selby-Bigger, L.A. & Nid ditch, P.H., 3rd ed. ).

(1975), An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Oxford Univ. Press: Oxford.] As a whole, sensations are judged more real than conceptions. The world of dreams is pour real world whilst we are sleeping, because our attention then lapses from the sensible world. Conversely when we wake the attention usually lapses from the dream-world and that becomes unreal. In the end you really cannot force yourself to believe what you really do not want to, for the very notion of what is true or false is based on your own reasoning, and how can you force your reasoning to morph itself to accommodate the frivolity of paradoxical and unreal reality of philosophy? ...

And hence saying I regretfully rest my case with this anomalous statement.