Senses and Sensibility…

Estudia: I understand, I think, what you were advocating about the validity of the senses, but...

Philo: But what?

Estudia: Well, as humans we have certain senses that work in certain ways that we understand pretty well but maybe not completely. What about someone with different senses, or a different form of our senses... or an alien say? Wouldn’t they come up with some different axioms and laws of physics? Well, maybe not laws, but at least theories of how things work since they would perceive them so much differently?

Philo: No they wouldn’t and let me explain. The senses are just a starting point for our thinking. We detect concrete objects in reality and we call that perception. What do we do with that? Well, first we organize our perceptions by abstracting, classifying and conceptualizing. We abstract by thinking of the concept, say rocks, without thinking of a particular rock but by the general idea of rocks. I’ll get into concept formation later, but first let me answer your question. Once we use our senses to perceive, we use our minds to think about the objects we perceive on the conceptual level. This is where we make inductions, we reason from the details we observe to the general. We form theories and consider exceptions and complexities so that we build up our knowledge of reality. By this process we discover how reality works and state our knowledge in terms of laws. Everything we do, the thinking, depends on our sense organs providing us with enough awareness to be able to detect similarities and differences among objects so that we can reach the conceptual stage.

Estudia: Yes, but someone with different senses would see others qualities of objects.

Philo: No matter. The whole process of learning about reality is not affected by the method in which we become aware of it. The “form” of our sensory awareness, whatever form that is, doesn’t matter because all the abstracting, theorizing, law development, etc. is done by our thinking, not by our senses.

Estudia: Oh, right. So someone, or thing, with different senses, would first perceive things differently, but if they make observations and abstract, theorize, etc. then they will come up with they same theories of physics. We all have to perceive the same reality and should come to the same conclusions.

Philo: Exactly. Assuming there isn’t a major mistake in one’s thinking. But reality will eventual prove who’s theory is correct in such a case.

Estudia: Oh, Okay! If something is a fact and it registers or stimulates a sense organ that’s it. It’s a fact, and so we can use these by thinking about them to gain further knowledge about existence. That’s kind of neat. I mean what other choice do I have? Especially if I’m to use my mind to understand the facts of reality, I have to work with the information I can only get by using my senses.

Philo: Sounds like you “got it”.

Estudia: Yes, but that brings up another interesting question. Where is the sense perception located, in the object which stimulates the sense or in us by whatever form the sense takes? Can we perceive a difference between the object and our form of perception? What I’m trying to figure out is something like: Where is the red or the odor or whatever of some object? Is the red in us due to our “form” of perception? How we see. Or is the red in the object? This could matter I think.

Philo: You bet. If what is actually out there has some effect on light say, or emits molecules of something, then we, with our senses, perceive it by the form of that sense. That would be rods and cones in the eye being stimulated and sending a signal to our consciousness, or olfactory bulbs responding to those molecules and us in turn smelling something. We can distinguish the difference between the form of our awareness and the actual physical make up of the object.

Estudia: So that means that the form is subjective. We the subject have senses and those senses aren’t really perceiving the object but something else. It’s all in our minds then?

Philo: No, no, no mame, paleezeee. If the form of perception were simply in your mind then we couldn’t be objective. That’s true, but what’s in our minds is an effect caused by something outside. We can tell a lot about objects today that we couldn’t years ago because we have used our senses to discover the truth about the forms we perceive. Someday we may learn the most fundamental attributes of objects and it wouldn’t matter to us as philosophers because the objects will still be objective objects. We won’t be able say something is not real just because we can explain it.

Estudia: Am I confused then?

Philo: Maybe. Look, you pluck a string of your guitar and you hear a note. Say the top thickest string. It should be a nice “E” sound. Where is the sound? The string causes the air to move in waves which move our ear drums which move the bones which transmit the vibrations to the inner ear where tiny hairs are moved which makes them produce a nerve impulse dah, dah...dah and so on. It is all connected. No string no sound, no you no brain stimulation and hence no hearing. We can learn all kinds of things by studying the form that we do perceive. We can’t experience “pure” reality directly, but we can use what we do perceive to know about reality.

Estudia: So the sensory qualities exist in the objects independent of our why of perceiving them, right?

Philo: No. That’s what is known as “naive realism” in philosophy. It’s a kind of mirror theory which claims that the senses don’t give us “pure” reality, but they are a refection of that reality. The senses are held to be valid by the “naive realist” because the sensory qualities are in the objects. The qualities are not dependent on us and independent of our means of perception. But we saw that all the evidence invalidates this idea. We need the object but we also need us for any thing to happen.

Estudia: So that’s why you call your view objectivism. Or at least Ayn Rand named it that. Cool, makes sense to me. . ¡Adios, amigo!