EPISTEMOLOGY PART 1: THE SENSES AND PERCEPTION
Epistemology? No thanks, I already know how people piss.
Can you ever really be sure you are a dumbass, or will there always be doubt? To answer this question, we need to delve into the arena of epistemology! Epistemology is the study of knowledge and how we know (or don't know) things. Just like with metaphysics, many philosophers and laymen alike make crucial errors in epistemology that often have far reaching and disastrous results. Perhaps you've heard phrases like, "we can never know anything for sure", or "I know it because I feel it's true". In a rational philosophy, both of those statements are chocked full of errors and will lead you astray. To see why, we need to study epistemology (which isn't as intimidating as it sounds!).
The human consciousness has 3 stages, our senses, perception and concepts. This is our means of grasping reality and understanding the world around us. We'll look at the senses first.
The human consciousness has 3 stages, our senses, perception and concepts. This is our means of grasping reality and understanding the world around us. We'll look at the senses first.
THE VALIDITY OF THE SENSES
Going back to metaphysics, there were the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity, as well as their corollaries (if you don't remember, make sure you read metaphysics again). In epistemology, we have a new corollary, which is the validity of the senses. This is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness, as in order to be conscious you must have a way to sense existence. Just as metaphysics was based on axioms, so is epistemology, so it's important to never forget these truths or contradict them later on. Remember, we can't "prove" axioms or their corollaries, as they precede proof and are self-evident truths. In fact, the very attempt to deny or disprove them results in showing they are true! In the same way that arguing "consciousness doesn't exist" results in a dead end, so does arguing that the senses aren't valid. Let's now examine why our senses are valid.
Going back to metaphysics, there were the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity, as well as their corollaries (if you don't remember, make sure you read metaphysics again). In epistemology, we have a new corollary, which is the validity of the senses. This is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness, as in order to be conscious you must have a way to sense existence. Just as metaphysics was based on axioms, so is epistemology, so it's important to never forget these truths or contradict them later on. Remember, we can't "prove" axioms or their corollaries, as they precede proof and are self-evident truths. In fact, the very attempt to deny or disprove them results in showing they are true! In the same way that arguing "consciousness doesn't exist" results in a dead end, so does arguing that the senses aren't valid. Let's now examine why our senses are valid.
Just in case you were confused!
Sight, sound, smell, taste and touch. These are our 5 senses, and the only direct link we have to existence. It's important to understand what exactly our senses are. They are an awareness of outside stimuli acting on our sense organs. In other words, they are what allows us to be aware of something. They only react to something, not nothing. When light waves hit our eyes, they register as an image, when sound waves hit our eardrums they register a sound, when a chemical reaches the nose it registers as a smell and so on. Our senses do NOT interpret this data, they just deliver it to our brains. They don't tell us what an object is, merely that it is. As such, our senses are infallible and not prone to error, as they make no judgements or interpretations. It's not until the conceptual level of consciousness that the possibility of error comes up.
Relax, we're only bad on the conceptual level!
Note that a visual illusion like a stick bending in the water does NOT mean the senses are invalid or suspect, to the contrary. This is actually telling us important information. Light passes through water at a different speed than air, which makes the stick appear to be bent. If a person were to conclude that the stick actually bends in the water, that would be an error on the conceptual level, but not an error of the senses. As we discovered more about our world we could ultimately explain why the stick appears bent, but it would never invalidate that our senses were correct. Similarly, in listening to a horrible band like Nickelback, it's not our senses that directly tell us they're awful, again that's on the conceptual level. Our senses only respond to the data; the sound waves of their instruments, and the light waves from their bodies.
The validity of the senses is even true when they are impaired or some are missing. Imagine a guy who's colorblind, for example. When a normal person says they see an object that is "red", what they are in essence saying is that, "I see something that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it to be red in color". A guy who's colorblind would say, "I see something that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it to be gray." If this object were an apple, notice that both people would be perceiving the same object and would not contradict each other. This is even true with someone who is completely blind, or in the case of Helen Keller, blind and deaf. While they might have more difficulty living their lives, they are still perceiving the same reality as we are (though with fewer inputs), and will still come to similar conclusions about the world. This is why a normal man, a colorblind man and a deaf man won't come up with different theories in physics or chemistry (assuming they follow reason). Nor would they differ on their understanding of the biology or nutrition of the apple. To go even further, nor would an alien with potentially different sense organs and far greater abilities than us. They could have superior abilities to understand or "see" certain things, but the fact is that they would still be perceiving the same reality, the same existence as we do. They would still be living in the same reality, and obey the same laws of nature we would. A person on hallucinogenic drugs, like LSD, may come up with a different view of reality (like that they can fly), but again, this is a result of a failure on the perceptual/conceptual level due to the drug's impairment of the brain to function properly. It has nothing to do with the senses, which are still valid.
The validity of the senses is even true when they are impaired or some are missing. Imagine a guy who's colorblind, for example. When a normal person says they see an object that is "red", what they are in essence saying is that, "I see something that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it to be red in color". A guy who's colorblind would say, "I see something that, when it acts on my senses, I perceive it to be gray." If this object were an apple, notice that both people would be perceiving the same object and would not contradict each other. This is even true with someone who is completely blind, or in the case of Helen Keller, blind and deaf. While they might have more difficulty living their lives, they are still perceiving the same reality as we are (though with fewer inputs), and will still come to similar conclusions about the world. This is why a normal man, a colorblind man and a deaf man won't come up with different theories in physics or chemistry (assuming they follow reason). Nor would they differ on their understanding of the biology or nutrition of the apple. To go even further, nor would an alien with potentially different sense organs and far greater abilities than us. They could have superior abilities to understand or "see" certain things, but the fact is that they would still be perceiving the same reality, the same existence as we do. They would still be living in the same reality, and obey the same laws of nature we would. A person on hallucinogenic drugs, like LSD, may come up with a different view of reality (like that they can fly), but again, this is a result of a failure on the perceptual/conceptual level due to the drug's impairment of the brain to function properly. It has nothing to do with the senses, which are still valid.
There is only one table!
THE TWO TABLES
Some philosophers have concluded that the senses are unreliable, because they don't actually see the nature of reality directly, only their effects. An intro to philosophy class in college might present you with the "two tables" notion. In this notion, the table that we perceive is brown, solid and motionless. Then there is the "table of science" which is mostly empty space, made up of small subatomic particles zooming around in space. If we could view the table from the subatomic level, it would look completely different, and thus we can't really rely on our senses because we're not actually viewing existence from its most basic level. The problem with this, is that it ignores the purpose of our senses and our consciousness, which is to grasp reality. When we say "that table looks brown", it's because our senses are giving us valuable information about the nature of that table, like that it's made of wood. The fact that the table feels "smooth" is also giving us valuable information, even if on the subatomic level it's anything but smooth. The question of "what is the table made of?" is one for physics, not philosophy. Trying to negate or change philosophy by physics is a fallacy, as it answers different questions. The physical sciences can explain what the table is made of, philosophy can explain consciousness and how we can trust science. Once again, the purpose of our senses is to give us objective information about the world around us so that we can grasp reality, and in that regard they are infallible. It's only in the conceptual realm that we are capable of errors, and boy do we make them!
If you want to go down the road the Skeptics take of, "our senses are unreliable, and therefore we can't really know anything" you might as well say, "man is blind because he has eyes, deaf because he has ears, deluded because he has a mind, and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them!" The only way to move on rationally to epistemology and life is to acknowledge the axiom that our senses are valid. Denying the validity of the senses will necessarily invalidate the rest of epistemology. A philosophic system which goes down this road will eventually lead to paralysis of even the most basic knowledge. It's a dead end.
Some philosophers have concluded that the senses are unreliable, because they don't actually see the nature of reality directly, only their effects. An intro to philosophy class in college might present you with the "two tables" notion. In this notion, the table that we perceive is brown, solid and motionless. Then there is the "table of science" which is mostly empty space, made up of small subatomic particles zooming around in space. If we could view the table from the subatomic level, it would look completely different, and thus we can't really rely on our senses because we're not actually viewing existence from its most basic level. The problem with this, is that it ignores the purpose of our senses and our consciousness, which is to grasp reality. When we say "that table looks brown", it's because our senses are giving us valuable information about the nature of that table, like that it's made of wood. The fact that the table feels "smooth" is also giving us valuable information, even if on the subatomic level it's anything but smooth. The question of "what is the table made of?" is one for physics, not philosophy. Trying to negate or change philosophy by physics is a fallacy, as it answers different questions. The physical sciences can explain what the table is made of, philosophy can explain consciousness and how we can trust science. Once again, the purpose of our senses is to give us objective information about the world around us so that we can grasp reality, and in that regard they are infallible. It's only in the conceptual realm that we are capable of errors, and boy do we make them!
If you want to go down the road the Skeptics take of, "our senses are unreliable, and therefore we can't really know anything" you might as well say, "man is blind because he has eyes, deaf because he has ears, deluded because he has a mind, and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them!" The only way to move on rationally to epistemology and life is to acknowledge the axiom that our senses are valid. Denying the validity of the senses will necessarily invalidate the rest of epistemology. A philosophic system which goes down this road will eventually lead to paralysis of even the most basic knowledge. It's a dead end.
PERCEPTIONS
Some organisms with the most primitive form of consciousness, like an amoeba, only have a sensory view of existence. They float about receiving all sorts of sensory data from their environment, but don't retain any of this information. The world is in constant flux and confusion, and they react to it automatically without ever actually viewing it. We as humans start our lives in the sensory stage as a newborn infant, but thankfully progress very quickly into the perceptual stage. On the sensory level, a mother and an infant would both look at a chair and see the exact same thing, a patch of colors, perhaps brown and black. However, the mother would immediately know that she was looking at a chair, while the infant wouldn't. This is because the mother has long since reached the perceptual level.
Some organisms with the most primitive form of consciousness, like an amoeba, only have a sensory view of existence. They float about receiving all sorts of sensory data from their environment, but don't retain any of this information. The world is in constant flux and confusion, and they react to it automatically without ever actually viewing it. We as humans start our lives in the sensory stage as a newborn infant, but thankfully progress very quickly into the perceptual stage. On the sensory level, a mother and an infant would both look at a chair and see the exact same thing, a patch of colors, perhaps brown and black. However, the mother would immediately know that she was looking at a chair, while the infant wouldn't. This is because the mother has long since reached the perceptual level.
Before you read this you already knew it was a chair, didn't you?
The reason we all know a chair when we see it, is that we have experienced many different sensations that our brain has retained and integrated. We know that if we go up to the chair it will be hard and we couldn't pass through it like it was water, we know that it would have weight, that it would be smooth, etc. We gained all of this knowledge from our senses, but our brain has automatically integrated it to give us a perceptual level of understanding. This elevates us from the amoeba, as we are now able to not only sense things like sights and sounds, but to put them together to understand entities, or objects. Reaching the perceptual level allows a being to possess a much greater degree of understanding of the world around it. Other animals, like dogs, whales and birds all join us on the perceptual level, as does any animal that has the ability to distinguish certain objects from one another.
I have perceptions too! (But no concepts, so I shouldn't be talking...)
The important thing to understand about sensations and perceptions, is that they are automatic and we have no control over them. We can't look at something and not see it, or listen to something and not hear it (with the possible exception of a husband and his wife!). We are not able to go back and experience reality as a newborn infant, even if we wanted to, as our brain has automatically integrated sensations into percepts. For this reason, our perceptions after infancy are the metaphysically given. Just like with the senses, it's useless (and wrong) to argue that they are invalid. We can no more stop our mind from integrating sensations into perceptions than we can stop our heart from beating or our stomach from digesting. Because this is the metaphysical reality, philosophy has no guidance to give us on perceptions, just as it doesn't give us guidance on digesting our food. Certain philosophers, like David Hume, actually denied the perceptual level, and said that only sensations are valid, not perceptions. This is a dead end, however, as no knowledge would ever be possible if we didn't integrate our sensations into perceptions. We would be forever a newborn infant (or amoeba). Consequently, Hume ended up as a paralyzed skeptic, as will you if you follow down that path.
While philosophy has no advice on perceptions, it has mountains of it on the third stage of human consciousness, concepts. Concept formation is NOT automatic. Taking percepts and integrating them into concepts is where we leave the rest of the animal kingdom behind and become distinctly human. Because it's not automatic or infallible, it's also where mistakes can be made, and again what makes us human! To cement this fact, the next post will get into the crucial battle between free will and determinism, before we can move on to the heart of epistemology, and what it means to be human, which is concepts.
While philosophy has no advice on perceptions, it has mountains of it on the third stage of human consciousness, concepts. Concept formation is NOT automatic. Taking percepts and integrating them into concepts is where we leave the rest of the animal kingdom behind and become distinctly human. Because it's not automatic or infallible, it's also where mistakes can be made, and again what makes us human! To cement this fact, the next post will get into the crucial battle between free will and determinism, before we can move on to the heart of epistemology, and what it means to be human, which is concepts.
