Sophical Musings NO# 1 – Reality

So before I get into the real meat and bones of things, I probably should explain what this “Sophical Musings” stuff is all is about. I should start by being very clear that I really don't know anything at all and that I do not claim to have any new or ground breaking ideas that are going to revolutionise the world of philosophy. Rather I just feel that I need to take some of the ideas – often inspired by others – and write these down in a way that makes them clearer to me and examine them to see if they are, first of all what I really believe at this time, and secondly if all the ideas that I am espousing fit together in to a coherent system. In short, it's just a sketch pad for things that I'm thinking about at the time and as such there will be things that are open to change, things I don't know the answer to, and probably quite a few contradictions along the way. If that's helps others with there own thoughts then all the better – even if only that they know they disagree. And like wise I'm hoping that people will argue with me and challenge some the assertions that I often take for granted and maybe make me see some things in a new way.

I should also add at this point that I am not an academic philosopher. I don't think, or argue in logical statements, but much prefer to think in stories and parables – I am a writer after all. Nor do I claim to know in any great depth the work of the great philosophers and I don't plan to spend any time trying to prove or refute them – this is personal exercise, not and academic one. In many ways the reason that I have never done something like this in a public area before is that I have always been frightened of embarrassing myself among such people. I guess I've grown up a little in recent years.

So all that said, now on my own ramblings. And today's topic:

Reality

I guess I picked this topic to start with as it's one of the core things I really feel I am comfortable with and I want to start in these areas and check my foundations before moving out on to ground that is less secure.

To start this I think we have to begin with the supposition that some kind of subjective self exists. (This may not be true, but then that's a topic for another day.) So there is someone that is perceiving the world, i.e. you/me/him. So I guess my first statement would be that:

The world as we perceive it cannot be complete reality.

I don't think there are many that would argue with this idea, though I maybe wrong on that. For me the strongest argument against reality being as it is perceived through the senses would be the comparison of the human and animals. We are told that some animals, for example dogs, rely more keenly on other senses in their interactions with the world. For our canine friend, their sense of smell defines the world more than say their eyes and so it seems impossible what we perceive of the world can be the same. So can it then be the same complete reality? Moreover, is there not the possibility of a whole other series of sense that have not evolved on the animals of this planet, but which might be a requirement of some alien environment? It seems perfectly possible.

Likewise, two humans looking at the same landscape can see different things, or can be moved in different way by works of art, leaving us to question if even humans see things in the same way. For example if we both look at something, we may use the word green to describe the colour. But what image that actually summons in my brain could be different from what is seen by others. In essence, what we are looking at may be the same but our brains/eyes translation of the image could mean that my green is your blue. I think this argument is further emphasised by problems such as colour blindness, where, as far as I understand it, people are unable to distinguish two different colours.

Likewise, if it was true that we always seen reality, then what about the mistakes in perception. It was only yesterday when I was passing a shop and friend of mine said, “What kind of Dog is that?” On closer inspection it turned out to be a pair of slippers.

Perhaps related, or perhaps unrelated, the whole idea of our memories and emotions having an effect on our perception could come into play here. It's rare that we look at something and don't have some mental response. For example on a hot day someone might look at an ice cold soft drink, but they don't see the drink, instead in their mind they are already drinking it. Likewise if someone sees a swastika or maybe a cross, it may invoke a whole series of other images. Though I'm sure it could be argued that the real image that was there was the trigger. But it seemed like a relevant aside.

Of course, it may be argued that all of us see part of reality, i.e. we see a section of what is really there. Like one person being able to see mountain peak, while the other can only see the bottom. But I don't think this really takes into account the problem of the brains translation of things and it certainly does not allow one to say that they can see complete unadulterated reality. However, the idea resurfaces later in next point.

So, if it is agreed that what we are looking is, in effect, at the mercy of our own senses. Then the real question that we to have to ask is:

Are our senses perceiving some real world and translating it into something that we can understand? Or, is the world simply the creation of our own minds and there is nothing real to perceive?

I guess the good old dream argument comes into play here. Are our waking lives just dreams? Is there nothing out there and everything is in our own heads – if there is a head to have? Or is there something out there that are senses are sending back data on. Is there a real component to things that is being translated back to us through the senses, like the blips on the radar screen that represent objects, but which are not the objects themselves?

At this point we leave the realms of science, as if everything we perceive is a fiction then science could in itself be a fiction and which, I understand ,would cause a lot of problems for some of the earlier arguments. However, we shall push on non-the-less, but at this point the place of hard and fast answers has gone and we must go with what we feel (not very scientific I know) and try to use other methods to try and understand.

When I reflect on this idea, I find myself first coming to the question:

Do other people exist?

This gives a new range of possibilities:

1. There is a reality – People are real
2. There is a reality – People are not real
3. There isn't a reality – People are real
4. There isn't a reality – People are not real

When I starting thinking about people I come to the conclusion that other people's thoughts and ideas which I encounter, do not originate from myself. In a simple example, maybe my friend suggests we go to the cinema. This idea, did not originate from me, I know it comes from something or someone external to myself – or a least that which I consider to be myself. So either

1. People are real
2. Something external is generating illusions of people
3. Something internal, (but separate from my high functions) is generating illusions of people.
   Now with the third case it could be argued that if something is generating it's own ideas and volitions, even if it's part of me, the fact that it is separate from my higher functions means that it is, in fact and independent being of sorts - but what about dreams? “People” that are encountered in dreams often appear to have their own ideas and volitions. Does that make them real? Well here I have to admit that argument is somewhat weak. But it could be said that characters in dreams are often based on those external thoughts and characters from the external. (Although, if there is no external the question remains where do those characters come from? But don't such creations require some external input, even from some internal higher function?) Thus it could be argued, that even if such beings are internal beings, the fact that they have some kind of higher functioning, equates them to being the same as external/real people – even if we share some connections in the lower consciousness.
   So what about the idea that something external is generating the ideas of these people. But surely the very fact of this suggest that there must be someone or something real generating these ideas, even if it is not directly the people themselves, i.e. there is something real out there. The people on the TV show may not be real, but there existence in effect proves the existence of some kind of writer. A writer who is reacting to my own actions and thoughts. It could be said that people have two faces, the internal and external, so even if this writer/writers are going through proxies of people does it not have similarities to the dealing with a real person? One might also argue about computer programs to simulate humans etc, but again there must be a creator and if the programs are so complex that they can act and think as humans... well that's another argument for another day.

I think here, for me at least, it seems that the trail leads to most simplest of solutions. Either the universe is conspiring to keep me, a single person in a very elaborate way (NB: this is not equal to the matrix as in this idea even the other people trapped would all have to be fake), or there exists some other entities out there who, even if part of my subconsciousness – although I still prefer the simpler idea of more separate semi-independent entities (notion of self coming on another day) – have their own thoughts and volitions.

So although there are still lots of holes and nothing is conclusive, it seems we can say either:

There is a reality – People are real or There isn't a reality – People are real
This would equate to some idea where either there is something real that or sense try to give us some idea of, or we are living some kind of shared dream – now you can think about the matrix.

My first thoughts here are that, if people are real, then there must be some common object of reference that we are using. For example if I pick up and apple and hand it to my friend. He also touches something that he perceives as an apple. And even if our perception of the object is different, we are still viewing the same base object. We still have the same point of reference.

But what about a computer game? In effect two people can play online and interact through virtual things? I can pick up the super hammer of twatting and give it to my elf friend – although scrawny elves probably aren't strong enough to use it. So if it is a virtual world, like say the matrix, can we know? Does it even make a difference?

This is about as far as I get with reasoning on reality. In part, it seems to me more important that the people and beings that we are interacting with are real, rather than that the world we perceive is reality. However, I should further more add that my intuition says more as well. I may just be wishful thinking but it does seem at times that we get glimpses of something beyond the mundane and so I feel that there is plenty of scope for there to be more that just what is taken on be our limited senses. Whether that is something behind what we know of as the world (the dream/matrix scenario), or that there are levels above or beyond in terms of or own consciousness etc. But these are all musings for another day....