Welcome to Gaia! ::

On the Deception of the senses:

I have already stated that we are to throw out our senses. But, first before we do that, we should examine them. (Unless you simply want to take my word for it). To examine them, we look back at our past experiences with them. Let's take sight for example, I know that there have been times when I have "seen" things that were not there, or thought I saw something, but, when I looked back at it, I realized that what I thought I saw, was not what the object really was; sight is thus thrown out. The same goes for hearing, I have, in the past, heard things that I did not think where there. We keep going on like this, until we have ruled out all the five senses, because, they can decieve you, this will be further illustrated in my "reality is a farce," later on.

Now, we reach thinking. Can thinking decieve me? Well, at first the answer seems simple, at first we immediately think about when we were wrong about something, and say, "Ha ha, Descartes is not right about thinking because I was decieved by not thinking about the right answer." However, this is not the case. Thinking can decieve you in a way that is very different from any other sense, however, this deception that thinking can cause is no grounds to throw it out. Thinking is looked at this way, you have a thought, whether or not that thought is correct is not of concern, why? Because, when you have a thought, you cannot think otherwise, you either had that thought, or you didn't. If you think you had a thought, when you didn't, you had that thought in as much as you thought that you had had it. Therefore, thought cannot decieve you, and is kept.

Now, about reality, why should reality be thrown out? Well, consider a dream, what is there to suggest that this is nothing more than a dream? A famous Chinese philosopher Chuang Tzu had a dream he was a butterfly, this caused him to wonder whether he is a butterfly dreaming he is a man or a man dreaming he was a butterfly. In the case of a schizophrenic, they often see, hear, taste (maybe), etc. that which a "normal" person cannot, what makes them incorrect, and the "normal" person right, other than the apparent fact that the "normal" people are clearly the majority in a society that says schizophrenics are incorrect? What then makes the schizophrenic right, in just the opposite case?

This reality is a one of perception as well, how do I know what you see, aligns with what I see? If I did know, I would have to be you, and if I were you, would I still be me? How so?

Now, go back to the dream, what sets this reality apart from a dream? When one dreams, it often feels as real as this reality, we often are able to use all of our five senses (if we are human, or have human qualities) in our dreams. Now, this opens up a great deal of numbers about reality. Such as, the most famous, is it real? Or, which one is real? One thought that enters my head, is let's suppose both dreams and this reality is real, is my dream world a parrallel universe of sorts? Is it an alternate dimension, where a physical body is the key to entering into it? Is my dream world, merely what my "self" is?

For more information, check out: Discourse on Method and Meditations By Rene Descartes. It's a two part book, the first on his Method, and the second on his Meditations (basically the practice of his method, if you will).
Now, I will note that this book (or really two books) goes on farther, trying to show that god exists, but, it utterly fails at that point.

I will post even more tomorrow, on it, I don't want to overload you.

The idea is that thoughts cannot be non-real, right?

But without sensory perceptions, are there any thoughts in the first place? Aren't the senses the only way we can learn about the world?

While it's not true that seeing something makes it exist, perceiving something makes the perception exist, because it's a type of thought. There must be some reason for the perception, the most obvious reason for the perception would be that the thing which you're seeing actually exists.

What I'm sayin' is that although perceptions aren't certain or reliable, it's basically the only means we have to learn about where we are.

They were there in so far as you thought they were, like I said, incorrect thoughts are no grounds for throwing out thought, because, the thought itself, regardless of the correctness, is what's important. Can you have a thought, that you never had? No, you cannot, it is impossible. All thoughts, even thoughts about thoughts, exist, they cannot, not exist, in other words, they exist (double negative rule of English).

More over, let's say you have a thought about a, which pertains to when you had or didn't have thought b. If you had thought b, then within the context of thought a, thought b exists, again, in as much as, you are thinking it, again; now, what about if you never thought of thought b? Well, then within the context of though a, you are thinking b, and thought b exists in as much as you are thinking it.

Again, incorrect thoughts are not part of the equation, because, they are nowhere hear the same as incorrect seeing. Incorrect seeing, is seeing something that is not there, can you have a thought that doesn't exist? In other words, let's say you are thinking a, can you think a, and have the actual thought of a , (meaning the actual thought, not just a, we don't care whether a actually exists (though technically it does in so far as you are thinking it) it's the actual thought) in which you were never thinking of that thought?

Is thought really that diffrent from any other sense, that it is exempt from being thrown out? You said that incorrect thoughts are no grounds to throw it out. You used a similar example to disprove, and therefore throw out sight. What makes thought so special that it is exempt?

Dreams do not use you eyesight. Blind me see in their dreams. Bad example, but I get the point.

Makes sense, I suppose. There are some things I don't understand, though. How do we find truth and what is the truth?

There's a chance that one has forgotten what one has already thought of in the past. How does that come into play?


I've no idea what the blind 'see' in their dreams, but I would say that dreams don't really 'use' any of our other senses, except for our brain. In dreams, we simply know something happens. For example, we know that person we're talking to in a dream is a family member. We know that a certain flower smells a certain way. Dreams feed us the more important information that's central to the 'plot' of the dream, even when it's total nonsense. At least, that's how my dreams seem to me. sweatdrop

And about Descartes' rhetoric: what about victims who have brain damage? Or people who are in a coma? Are they actually still thinking in their prone, seemingly-lifeless bodies, has their souls departed from it, or what?