A question concerning perceptions.

[Nicko0301]

I will try to make this as succinct as possible. (Disclaimer: some may find this laughable or absurd, but it has been bugging me incessantly and thus I need some feed-back.)

If my senses receive stimuli from reality and send aforesaid stimuli to my brain via certain nerves and what not, could it not then be argued that what I am seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling are some sort of mental reconstruction of the external world?

Any insights would be tremendously appreciated.

[Nicko0301]

I will do my best to keep this succinct. (This issue has been bothering me lately, and it strikes me as absurd, only I can't quite put my finger on the cause of this absurdity)

Since our senses pick up information of the world around us--and since this sensory information is carried to our brains vie certain nerve processes--could it not then e argued that the things we see, taste, touch, hear, and smell are only a sort of mental reconstruction of what exists objectively, but not the thing itself? (I know, by the way, that this is very Kantian in nature.)

[softwareNerd]

Can it be argued that when we see, it is really some action of electrons or molecules inside our brain that we think of as sight? Yes, and if you were interested in some particular aspect of biology, that is all that might interest you in some particular context. However, stepping back, would one argue that biological actions are causeless primaries, or would one agree that they are caused by (say) the transmission of some flows via the nervous system? Further, would one argue that those flows are causeless primaries, or that they are caused by the actions of (say) light or sound? And, further, wouldn't one argue that that particular instance light and sound is caused by some particular external object, rather than being a causeless primary?

[DavidOdden]

Since our senses pick up information of the world around us--and since this sensory information is carried to our brains vie certain nerve processes--could it not then e argued that the things we see, taste, touch, hear, and smell are only a sort of mental reconstruction of what exists objectively, but not the thing itself?

Absolutely not. But re-read what your question says. Suppose that conclusion were true; then that would mean that when you see a cat, the "thing you see" -- the cat, itself -- is only a "mental reconstruction" of something. That implies that the mind projects this reconstruction in some fashion so that there isn't any real cat, just a "reconstruction". That contradicts the further assumption that this is a reconstruction "of what exists objectively".

The only way in which you might hope to save that position would be if you believe in an intermediate projection. Somehow, the cat causes the creation, somewhere, of some non-mental "reconstruction", and then we see only the indirect internal projection of the cat. People have held such ideas, but the obvious problem with that theory is that you wonder, where are these mysterious images that we see? That's why nobody believes that theory -- there are no projected spots inside the head which we see.

The third option is that you have some other interpretation of "mental reconstruction", but then you'll have to explain what exactly you mean. What you literally asked cannot be the case. OTOH it clearly is the case that when you see a cat, there is a mental representation of that cat, which is most certainly not an actual cat. Part of the act of seeing is the creation of that representation.

[Nicko0301]

Can it be argued that when we see, it is really some action of electrons or molecules inside our brain that we think of as sight? Yes, and if you were interested in some particular aspect of biology, that is all that might interest you in some particular context. However, stepping back, would one argue that biological actions are causeless primaries, or would one agree that they are caused by (say) the transmission of some flows via the nervous system? Further, would one argue that those flows are causeless primaries, or that they are caused by the actions of (say) light or sound? And, further, wouldn't one argue that that particular instance light and sound is caused by some particular external object, rather than being a causeless primary?

Yes, they are of course caused. However, the causes and the actual image that I see (hear, taste, sound, and smell) are not the same thing then, are they?

[Nicko0301]

Absolutely not. But re-read what your question says. Suppose that conclusion were true; then that would mean that when you see a cat, the "thing you see" -- the cat, itself -- is only a "mental reconstruction" of something. That implies that the mind projects this reconstruction in some fashion so that there isn't any real cat, just a "reconstruction". That contradicts the further assumption that this is a reconstruction "of what exists objectively".

The only way in which you might hope to save that position would be if you believe in an intermediate projection. Somehow, the cat causes the creation, somewhere, of some non-mental "reconstruction", and then we see only the indirect internal projection of the cat. People have held such ideas, but the obvious problem with that theory is that you wonder, where are these mysterious images that we see? That's why nobody believes that theory -- there are no projected spots inside the head which we see.

The third option is that you have some other interpretation of "mental reconstruction", but then you'll have to explain what exactly you mean. What you literally asked cannot be the case. OTOH it clearly is the case that when you see a cat, there is a mental representation of that cat, which is most certainly not an actual cat. Part of the act of seeing is the creation of that representation.

Do you think you could possibly expound on the first part of your post? I'm afraid I don't exactly follow.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Nicko0301

[DavidOdden]

Do you think you could possibly expound on the first part of your post? I'm afraid I don't exactly follow.

A very simple way to put this is that you do not see images. You see cats. (Well, if someone takes a picture of a cat and shows it to you, then you do see an image).

[phibetakappa]

. . . could it not then be argued that what I am seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling are some sort of mental reconstruction of the external world?

First, I wanted to point out, that you chose to use the term "re-construction", which obviously means "to construct again."

Given the context of what you are describing, the implication is that "construction of the external world" had already taken place and then whatever you meant by "mental" has constructed the external world again.

The implication of the external world being previously constructed, has many bizarre consequences.

Hopefully you did not intend imply that the external world was somehow first constructed then our body/mind somehow constructs it again.

Your question:

Our body's organs which provide use with sense-perception, and the method and/or mechanism of how they provide us with sense perceptions are deterministic, i.e., non-volitional, and operate via the law of identity.

The sense-perception organs provide us with sensory information in a particular "form".

If we had different perceptual organs, we would perceive the objects of the world in different "forms".

But, the "object" we perceive is still the object, no matter by what "form" it is perceived.

Thus all forms of perception are valid.

[Nicko0301]

A very simple way to put this is that you do not see images. You see cats. (Well, if someone takes a picture of a cat and shows it to you, then you do see an image).

Ah, alright. I suppose the question that I meant to ask, but somehow forgot, was: are the things which I am seeing only being seen in my mind? If sensations are being sent from my various senses to my brain, is it not all occurring in the brain? Or is it that I am simply aware of what is there?

Edited November 14, 2009 by Nicko0301

[phibetakappa]

A very simple way to put this is that you do not see images. You see cats.

Precisely! Great way to put it.

We do see objects, not images. That what it means to "see" an object.

:-)

[Nicko0301]

First, I wanted to point out, that you chose to use the term "re-construction", which obviously means "to construct again."

Given the context of what you are describing, the implication is that "construction of the external world" had already taken place and then whatever you meant by "mental" has constructed the external world again.

The implication of the external world being previously constructed, has many bizarre consequences.

Hopefully you did not intend imply that the external world was somehow first constructed then our body/mind somehow constructs it again.

Your question:

Our body's organs which provide use with sense-perception, and the method and/or mechanism of how they provide us with sense perceptions are deterministic, i.e., non-volitional, and operate via the law of identity.

The sense-perception organs provide us with sensory information in a particular "form".

If we had different perceptual organs, we would perceive the objects of the world in different "forms".

But, the "object" we perceive is still the object, no matter by what "form" it is perceived.

Thus all forms of perception are valid.

Thank you for point the first part out. No, I of course didn't mean that the world is previously constructed and then "reconstructed." That was poor syntax on my part.

[phibetakappa]

[A]re the things which I am seeing only being seen in my mind?

Do you go to a psychiatrist, and/or take any medications for delusions and/or schizophrenia? Do you see objects or hear voices other people cannot see/hear?

If you have a normal, healthy brain than if you are "seeing" objects then those objects your perceptual organs are giving you are "out there," they really do exist.

There is nothing about your sense-organs, which give them the ability to "construct" an external world.

Edited November 14, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Nicko0301]

Do you go to a psychiatrist, and/or take any medications for delusions and/or schizophrenia? Do you see objects or hear voices other people cannot see/hear?

If you have a normal, healthy brain than if you are "seeing" objects then those objects your perceptual organs are giving you are "out there," they really do exist.

There is nothing about your sense-organs, which give them the ability to "construct" an external world.

I am not under treatment for a mental disorder, nor do I have one. I am simply trying to resolve a question that occurred to me a few days ago. I know intuitively that my conclusion was erroneous; I just couldn't quite put my finger on my mistake. Hence I posted it as a topic for discussion. I appreciate everyone's responses--they are clarifying the issue for me. However, you don't have to be so rude as to intimate that I am psychologically unsound.

Thank you.

[Nicko0301]

Also, excuse my initial posts horrendus spelling errors. I was very tired when I wrote it.

[DavidOdden]

Ah, alright. I suppose the question that I meant to ask, but somehow forgot, was: are the things which I am seeing only being seen in my mind? If sensations are being sent from my various senses to my brain, is it not all occurring in the brain? Or is it that I am simply aware of what is there?

It may be that epistemology is the most difficult area of philosophy, because historically speaking, there were a lot of pretty crazy ideas about the mind, and people are still in the habit of speaking about the mind metaphorically. What I suggest you do is try to understand the basic terms, and especially what they refer to. The act of "seeing" is a very complex one, involving physical events outside your body, light entering your eye, this causes neuro-chemical events in the eye which are transmitted to the brain. The result, which is mental, is a "percept", that is, you perceive a particular cat. Perception is an automatic mental process which operates on the sensations that come from your optic nerve.

By "senses" I assume that you mean your external sense organs, the sensory receptor; there is also the neural pathway to the brain, and, legitimately part of the "senses" there is some aspect of the brain (the lateral geniculate nucleus). A signal is transmitted to the primary visual cortex, and things move around a lot up there. You can study a lot of detail about the science of visual perception, and none of this is going to really address the question that you asked. You asking about "seeing", which is a perfectly normal word that does not take a PhD in physiology and psychology to understand. You see a cat. Period.

It's okay to be curious about what underlies "seeing", but then you have to not be asking particularly detailed questions about where seeing happens -- it happens in you, and that's as far as you can get. If you want to ask about the transmission of signals from the primary visual cortex to the prestriate cortex to the inferior temporal gyrus, that's fine, but that's not about "seeing". That's about visual perception and identification.

I assume your question is basically a philosophical one, not a scientific one. Philosophically, I don't believe that you can get any more specific that "It's all in your head", meaning that "seeing" involves the eyes and therefore you cannot legitimately claim that your eyes are not part of "seeing".

[softwareNerd]

However, you don't have to be so rude as to intimate that I am psychologically unsound.

I don't think PhiBetaKappa intended to be rude as much as he intended to make a point strongly. Sometimes, people do see things that aren't really there; hallucinations actually happen. I might see a lion and think I'm hallucinating, until he takes a chunk out of my leg, and then I think I'm still dreaming that up until he ... ... And, yet some people do hallucinate... and it's a mental illness (or sometimes a temporarily induced malfunction).

Sensations do not give us automatic knowledge (e.g. the optical illusion of a pencil appearing bent in a beaker of water, or a mirage in the desert, or even the more plebian example of text seeming fuzzy to a person with poor eyesight). Nevertheless, sensations are typically caused by something external. And, these sensations are therefore the starting point to discovering the true nature of that external thing. We learn the link between external things and sensations very early in life: e.g. by playing peek-a-boo! Almost every little act we do every day depends in this being true, and it all works out: showing that it is.

[Grames]

I will try to make this as succinct as possible. (Disclaimer: some may find this laughable or absurd, but it has been bugging me incessantly and thus I need some feed-back.)

If my senses receive stimuli from reality and send aforesaid stimuli to my brain via certain nerves and what not, could it not then be argued that what I am seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling are some sort of mental reconstruction of the external world?

Any insights would be tremendously appreciated.

There is a rigorous treatment of this issue in David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses. You can get the gist of what he said there by reading my notes here.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think you can answer your own question simply by observing. What do you observe when you look at something, are you observing the thing you are looking at or are you seeing an image in your mind? I think it's rather obvious that you are seeing the thing and not some projection. A projection in your mind would be your imagination, and that is distinctive from perception. You see and taste the apple, not a projection of what the apple might be as configured by your mind. Percepts, in the way Miss Rand uses the term, is the automatic integration of sense material so that you are aware of entities, their attributes, and the actions. It is not as if the percept is created in the sense that a movie is created and you are watching that or tasting that. Perception is our first-level contact with reality, and there is no getting beneath that by making references to the eyes, optic nerves, or visual cortex -- or whatever those do when they function. Perception is the bottom rung of awareness; and you are aware of the apple or the cat, you are not directly (via perception or something like it) aware of your eyes, your optic nerve or your visual cortex. Just look at the world and what do you observe -- it's not pretty pictures in your head, but rather what is really out there as you are aware of it due to your means of awareness.

[Nicko0301]

I would like to thank everyone for their assistance in this matter. All of these posts have been very helpful. I eagerly await any further elucidation.

[whYNOT]

While agreeing, essentially, with all the replies here, I have to quibble with a secondary point - as in "there are no projected spots inside the head which we see"; and, "you are seeing the thing and not some projection", and "we do see objects, not images."

It isn't generally known that the retina of the eye, along with the optic nerve, is a part of the brain. (something I found out when I nearly lost a retina last year.)

The function of sight, with light passing through cornea and iris, focussed partly by cornea, and also by lens, and then producing an upside-down image (as does any lens), onto the retina at the back of the eye - is literally a projection, onto a screen.

The optic nerve behind the retina picks up this info, and transmits it to the vision centre of the brain.

The brain processes all this; just one process of thousands, of course is turning the raw image the right way up.

So biologically, all our senses do cause 'reconstructs', by the sense and the brain - metaphorically, a precise recreation of reality.

This does not in any way contradict the major point you all alluded to, which is that we are still perceiving reality - it's just that there is an intermediate process of turning all stimuli (think of the delicate process inside the ear, with sound), into percepts.

Everything else, identity and consciousness, then follows. Our senses are 100% accurate - there is just one extra 'step' in how they operate.

[Grames]

While agreeing, essentially, with all the replies here, I have to quibble with a secondary point - as in "there are no projected spots inside the head which we see"; and, "you are seeing the thing and not some projection", and "we do see objects, not images."

Stay tuned for the next spellbinding chapter of "The Evidence of the Senses" wherein the doctrine of sensationalism is confronted and given the evil eye.

"The key question then is whether the physiological processes of integration that make possible depth perception, the constancies, and other features distinguishing perceptual from sensational awareness provide any reason for considering perception indirect." - Kelley

[Nicko0301]

Stay tuned for the next spellbinding chapter of "The Evidence of the Senses" wherein the doctrine of sensationalism is confronted and given the evil eye.

"The key question then is whether the physiological processes of integration that make possible depth perception, the constancies, and other features distinguishing perceptual from sensational awareness provide any reason for considering perception indirect." - Kelley

I feel as if I am awaiting the newest installment of my favorite soap opera!

Seriously, though, I am looking forward to this.

[phibetakappa]

However, you don't have to be so rude as to intimate that I am psychologically unsound.

I personally know people who both hear voices and/or see objects that other people don't, and regularly see a psychiatrist for medication. I was serious, not trying to be rude. Sometimes a question is a question, it is not a means to "intimate".

Schizophrenia and manic depression can cause these symptoms.

Edited November 15, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Nicko0301]

I personally know people who both hear voices and/or see objects that other people don't, and regularly see a psychiatrist for medication. I was serious, not trying to be rude. Sometimes a question is a question, it is not a means to "intimate".

Schizophrenia and manic depression can cause these symptoms.

Well, no, I am neither Schizophrenic nor bipolar. My question was more of an attempt to ascertain how we know certainly that things actually exist independent of our perceptions. It might seem laughable and unreasonable, but I wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I am overly skeptical on a subconscious level, or something.

[phibetakappa]

It might seem laughable and unreasonable, but I wanted to discuss it.

Given the number of people who honestly ask the same question, I don't think it is either laughable or unreasonable.