Perception Descartes Could Have Appealed

¶ … Perception

Descartes could have appealed to the kind of possibilities exploited in The Matrix or Total Recall, but that comparison would not have been as easy to make at that time. The technology available to create the complex dream worlds established in both The Matrix and Total Recall was obviously not available at that time. While that may seem like a pedantic point, it is actually a very important thing to realize. There simply was not a technology available to even allow people to envision the possibility of the type of control that one would have in The Matrix, and nothing other than the possibility of witchcraft that would have permitted the creation of a dream world akin to Total Recall during Descartes time. This is important to realize because Descartes' Evil Demon hypothesis seems to be very similar to a witchcraft scenario: a powerful and evil personification aimed at harming and deceiving the individual. When one considers the externalities of the societies involved (belief in technology as compared to belief in witchcraft), there really does not seem to be a significant difference in the approaches to externalities.

Skeptical arguments are not necessarily self-refuting. At the heart of a skeptical argument is the idea that nothing can be known with a certainty. Therefore, even if there are mistakes in an argument, such as faulty premises, the fact that it has been previously acknowledged that none of these premises can be known or established builds into the argument. For a modern audience, how many people left The Matrix wondering if everything once Neo-was unhooked was part of an additional alternate reality of some sort? The idea that one could wonder that means that one was questioning the premises presented in the argument, and that the argument was not self-refuting, despite having some uncertainty about the premises.

2.

After expressing confusion about dreaming and waking, Descartes claims that he can distinguish between his waking life and his dream life at the end of the Sixth Meditation. He relies upon the notion that memory cannot connect dreams with each other and with the course of life. Moreover, he discusses the discontinuity that is a feature of dreams and how people simply appear in dreams without the dreamer being able to know where he came from or where he goes to when he leaves the dreamer's presence. Being able to connect a perception of a person with other parts of his life is a feature that Descartes connects with being wakefulness.

If I were writing a script for a film that is meant to disprove Descartes' argument that he can distinguish from sleeping and waking, I would present a dream life that is substantially realistic, and a waking life that is substantially surreal, that it is impossible to distinguish between wakefulness and dreaming. Dennis Lehane's book Shutter Island does a really great job of creating this type of dual reality, though he does so in a variety of ways that do not involve dreaming. I would utilize some of those same techniques to present evidence that it is not possible to distinguish between dreams and wakefulness. Having a central character whose perception is altered, either intentionally or unintentionally, because of some type of hallucinogen would be one element of that script. Another element of the script would be having people intentionally trying to confuse the central character while he is awake.

3.

No; Neo-does not actually have any more reason to believe that once unhooked the reality he experiences is any more "real" than his previous environment was "real." If there were some type of Cartesian "evil genius" capable of filling a person with doubt and dread, then that genius could certainly conceive of having a system within a system scenario. In fact, if human beings have some type of desire to know what is beyond them, but would need to be used as fuel of some sort, like the characters in The Matrix, then it might be necessary for those controlling/using them to establish a scenario like Neo's so that people feel as if they are exercising some type of control over their own situations.

According to Descartes, being able to connect a perception of a person with other parts of his life is a feature that helps one distinguish between sleeping and wakefulness. Therefore, Neo-might be able to rely upon the idea that there is continuity, not only between the sequences when he is disconnected, but also between his being connected and being disconnected from the matrix. The problem with this scenario is that there is no real differentiation between his being connected and being disconnected; from Neo's reference point there is continuity from both systems. Moreover, one disconnected, Neo-is able to spot inconsistencies or "glitches" in the world of the Matrix. However, he did not spot those inconsistencies before; instead, they were explained away with human failure or perception issues, such as having the feeling of deja vu. Because Neo-was conditioned to expect those types of glitches as part of his daily perception, it seems unlikely that he would immediately acknowledge those types of glitches once disconnected; they might now even register with him. When one has been conditioned to accept that a dream-like state is "reality," and one's only real interaction with reality comes in one's late-20's, it would seem far more difficult to ever clearly differentiate between reality and dreams.

4.

The most important part of the question is the word "seem," because the characters seem to have some type of control over their experiences, but the stories are also being told from the perspective of those characters. Whether the characters actually have any control over their scenarios is not actually directly addressed in any of the films, because the audience does not see the story from the perspective of the omnipotent person who may or may not exist and may or may not be directing the action. To maintain a successful illusion, it would be critical to retain the perception of control. However, as the multiple layers in each film makes clear, even in the alternate "dream" realities; the characters feel as if they are exercising some type of control. Therefore, having the characters "seem" as if they are exercising control is compatible with the idea that their experiences are caused in the way described. Whether having the characters take actions that actually reflect a genuine level of control would be consistent with those actions depends heavily on how one interprets the descriptions of events presented in the narratives of each film.

5. At the end of Total Recall, the hero wonders whether the experiences portrayed in the film might be all hallucinatory. Was there a clue in the film clips shown that suggests an answer to that question (from the third-person perspective)?

The movie is very intentionally ambiguous about whether the events are a dream or are reality, and one can find support for either position at various points in the film. However, there is a scene prior to Quaid having his Rekall experience in which people are describing specific elements of what his experience will entail. Those elements do occur in his "adventure." For example, he describes Melina, a dark-haired beauty who looks nothing like his beautiful blonde wife, when talking about the type of woman he finds attractive, and the Rekall staff even show him a picture of her on the screen before the "adventure" begins. Moreover, the movie has a very unrealistic quality that supports the idea that it is a dream; some things are simply inconceivable even in a sci-fi alternate reality, and the incredibly fast pace of the movie and its repeated twists and turns suggest the type of frenzied and frantic elements that accompany dreamscapes. The best clue that it is a dream is when one of the men from Rekall appears on Mars and tells Quaid that he needs to take his pill and exit the dream. It is difficult to explain this element as part of the plot, since Rekall would not seem to employ agents/double-agents, because, if it had, then they would not have attempted to give Quaid his fantasy vacation, knowing that he was an agent who had experienced a memory wipe. Therefore, the fact that the Rekall person appears in the movie, like people from waking life sometimes make appearances in dreams when they are on the fringes of a dreamer's consciousness, strongly supports the dream interpretation of the movie.

6. When the Rekall man comes to Quaid to try to get him to take the pill because he has become trapped in the program, Quaid points out that the man is sweating and that there would be no reason for a computer-generated person to be sweating. He uses that as evidence to convince himself that the person is real. However, there is a difference between being realistic and being real. If the scenario is all a dream, there are so many things that occur in the movie that would have been unnecessary for the programmers, but apparently occurred. If it was a dream, then the programmers clearly attempted to incorporate background realism. For example, the characters get dirty; like sweat, dirt is not something that the programmers would need to create to have realistic humans, but there is dirt on people. If one accepts the premise that the entire story is a dream, it is not difficult to take an additional step and assume that the programmers would think to have a character, who is supposed to appear nervous, sweating while he was on screen.

7. There are clues throughout the movie that the hero could use to discover whether his experiences were veridical or not. Perhaps the best clue is foreshadowed at the beginning of the movie and comes at the end of the movie; the appearance of the blue sky on Mars. Having never been to Mars, I have to rely upon my own conjecture, but I am under the impression that a blue sky on Mars would be impossible. If one is in a society where Mars has been colonized, an element that almost certainly must be true in the story whether or not the rest of the story is a dream or reality, because the company could not implant a realistic fantasy about an adventure on Mars were it not colonized, then one would have that knowledge. If a blue sky on Mars is, indeed, impossible, then Quaid could use that knowledge to investigate his dream. While that does not exactly address continuity, it does address the lack of reality in dreams that Descartes discusses. Dreams frequently fail to adhere to known laws of nature, so that, if it were not a dream, it would defy everything Quaid has known as reality. Moreover, the fact that the blue sky does not appear until the end of the movie demonstrates a lack of internal continuity, suggesting a dreamscape.

8. The characters in Inception and The Matrix approached their worlds in two very different ways. In Inception, the characters were intentionally choosing to leave reality and enter the world of dreams; he chose to escape into fantasy, thus needing a manner of keeping touch with reality. He chose the spinning top, but a scene in the film shows other dreamers choosing other touchstones. In contrast, in The Matrix, the character has not intentionally entered the world of dreams; he was captured in the world of dreams and has entered the world of reality. Because, once he is awake, he is aware that he is "dreaming" when he enters the matrix, Neo-would not seem to need that same type of touchstone. However, having been conditioned that the matrix is reality, he falters in his belief that, in that reality, he can do things that are beyond his capability in the real world. Another significant difference is that, in Inception, the characters can manipulate the external environment of the dream, not just their interactions with the dream world (for example, the creation of the tsunami), which differs from how characters can interact with the matrix.

Locke begins with the belief that no person could really mistake a dream for reality. He thinks that there is a distinction between something conceived of by the mind and something experienced in actual reality. Therefore, Locke would seem to reject the notion that a person would need an external element, such as the spinning top in Inception, to distinguish dreams from reality. Hume looked at vivacity as an independent variable that could impact "thoughts" and how they interacted with reality, so that a sufficiently vivacious thought could become reality for the individual, without ceasing to be a thought. The clearest example for Hume would have been a person experiencing a mental illness. Therefore, Hume would have found having an element, like the spinning top, to remind one when something is a dream or reality as a helpful element.

9. It appears that we are supposed to believe that Neo-has learned to ignore his education prior to leaving the Matrix and recognize that those things he has learned to be realities, such as the laws of physics, simply do not apply to him when he is in the matrix, though they are applicable when he is not in the matrix. What he has learned is to be mindful of the fact that he is in a dream at the time that he is dreaming. This is something that Locke, Hume, and Descartes all discuss in varying degrees, the ability of the dreamer to recognize a dream while it is occurring. However, while the philosophers discuss that phenomenon, they honestly seem more concerned about being able to reassure themselves that what occurs when they are awake is actually happening during wakefulness. To be aware, while dreaming that the apparent reality is actually part of an imaginary construct, and to be dreaming are similar experience, but they are also fundamentally different. To be aware that reality is an imaginary construct, but that certain rules will still apply in that construct is a further step. For example, Neo-learns to bend and change "reality" in the matrix, but can still be injured, even fatally, in the program if he ceases to understand that it is not reality.

10. I think the answers to those questions would be strongly based on the individual who answered the question and cannot be answered in a blanket manner. Some people react very negatively to stress, danger, and anxiety; for some people those elements are exciting, for other people they are distressing. In Total Recall, it certainly appears that Quaid would prefer to live in his dream life than in his waking life; his normal reality does not contain sufficient anxiety to meet his personal needs for stimulus. In Inception, Cobb seems content to live in dreams, but for a different reason that what motivates Quaid in Total Recall; Cobb seems to enjoy the element of absolute control over externalities that he has in dreams, which simply is not possible in reality. For them, living in a dream could be more enjoyable than reality. There appears to be a fundamental difference between those movies and The Matrix. Rather than entering into a dream state, Neo-wakes from a forced dream state; he is a slave in reality but a freeman in his imagination. Choosing between freedom and enslavement is not the same choice posited by Nozick in "The Experience Machine." In that argument, Nozick presupposes that humans are free, after all, they are free to make the choice to use the machine or not use the machine. Therefore, Cypher choosing to live as a slave seems to be irrational. However, when one considers the real trade-offs that human beings make every day in order to increase their personal comfort, it becomes clear that humans are willing to accept limitations on personal liberty in exchange for comfort and security. Cypher's choice may not be admirable, but not being brave or admirable is not the same thing as being irrational.

11. Of course, the most significant difference between the victims in The Matrix and the brains in a vat discussed by Putnam is that the humans in The Matrix have bodies and are not simply brains. The brain in a vat scenario removes the possibility of sensations from the outside world, which is not removed in The Matrix, and that difference is relevant. For Putnam, the brain in a vat could never have a true awareness of being a brain in a vat. It lacks the means to perceive outside stimuli in that way. This is connected to the lack of a body. If it becomes aware of that notion, it is because of the outside source of information, which could be false, making it impossible for the brain to come to that conclusion. However, once disconnected from The Matrix, the person becomes capable of using all of their normal means of encountering stimuli. Neo-has eyes, so he can physically observe the other humans in their vats, a possibility denied to the brain.

As to whether the victims of matrix-induced hallucinations can still have thoughts about an external world, the answer seems to be yes. There does not seem to be any reason that somehow real perceptions from people's senses could not sometimes break through into the artificial reality. The movie does not enter into an in-depth discussion of those break-throughs, though one would imagine that they are perceived as dreams by the victims. Dreams of being suspended in water or waking feelings of hopelessness and depression might be ways that the dreamers would process these external stimuli.

Section 2: Philosophy of Mind

1. Of course, the most significant philosophical problem hinted at in the opening is the idea that Samsa has woken from a dream. The stage is set to understand that Samsa has been experiencing unsettling dreams that night. In fact, the word "unsettling" is very significant. Samsa does not react with particular alarm to finding that he is a bug; he seems to take that in stride without being disturbed. What type of dreams would so unsettling that waking to find oneself a bug would seem almost mundane? Of course, when discussing philosophy, the idea of "woke" is critical as well. How does one differentiate between dreams and reality? Likewise, the word "found" has implications as well. How does he perceive that he has been transformed into a bug? It appears that he actually perceives those things, but there is no mention of his perceptions being altered at that time. Certainly, to the average person, dreaming that they woke and found that one has been transformed into a bug would be an element of a very unsettling dream. Samsa then looks around his familiar room to see that it contains all of the elements that he expects to find in the room and uses other senses, such as his sense of hearing, to verify that it is actually raining. These elements of normalcy are the things that make him aware that he is actually a bug and not simply imagining that he is a bug. However, the problem with that argument is that, having been changed into a bug, even a monstrous bug, it certainly seems that Samsa would actually experience stimuli in a different way than a human would experience that same stimuli.

2.

There are several steps in Descartes' cogito argument. It comes after Descartes has already discussed other elements in his philosophy, and, therefore, builds upon those elements. For example, Descartes discusses the existence of God and the existence of a deceiver/demon character that could deceive the thinker. It is important to realize the possibility of both of those elements when entering into the cogito argument. Therefore, in order to fully understand the cogito argument, it is helpful to step back and examine how he gets to the Cogito argument. Descartes starts by discussing dreams and reality and comes to the conclusion that it is possible that all perceptions are false. Then, he moves from there to introduce God into the equation, introducing his belief in an all-powerful God. God has the power to deceive humans, but, would not do so. Therefore, Descartes introduces the idea of an evil demon who can deceive humans in the same way that God could. Therefore, human beings have doubt. However, even if there is a deceiver, the very fact that the thinker can be deceived means that the thinker exists. A thinker cannot be deceived about existing, because perceiving deception requires thought, and though implies existence. However, it is important to realize that this existence refers to the through processes, not the body, since one's perceptions about the body and about most of the external world could be manipulated by a deceiver. Descartes uses the idea of God that he finds in his mind to move from being inside his mind as a thinker to believing in the actual existence of objects outside of his mind.

If one accepts Descartes' premises, then his cognito argument is a good argument. However, the huge flaw in the argument is that it presupposes the existence of God. If one removes that assumption, the entire argument becomes unraveled. Descartes cannot use his mind to prove God based on stating that his mind has proven that God exists; the argument becomes far too circular to be considered an objectively good argument when placed in the context of a society that questions God's existence.

3. Gilbert Ryle calls Descartes' dualistic assumption "a myth." Why? What, in your opinion, is "mythical" about it?

Descartes' dualistic assumption is that the mind and the body work in parallel with little understanding of the interaction between mind and body, which Ryle refers to as the "ghost in the machine." Ryle believes that this dualistic assumption is mythical because it is based upon an assumption that mental processes can be separated and isolated from physical processes. He believes that knowledge interacts with doing in a way means the mind and body not only have to interact with one another, but also that there is no real separation between mind and body. Instead, thought can help explain the actions of the body. I have to agree with Ryle that the distinction between mind and body seems to be a stretch. The mind, at its most basic, is a complex tool for processing perceptions. The body is the way that the mind processes those perceptions. To insert a barrier between the two seems to belie a most basic understanding of science and function. The very existence of reflexes is sufficient argument for me to reject the idea that the body and mind are separately working in parallel. Reflexes exist as some type of protective phenomenon for human beings, so that occur almost instantaneous to the stimuli. However, one cannot stop them from happening. If there was a "ghost in the machine," that ghost could override the body's impulse to behave in the reflex activity. However, barring an underlying physiological disorder, pupils will contract when hit with a bright light; reflexes are involuntary. Even involuntary muscle movements, like breathing or having a heartbeat support the idea that the mind and body are one; for example, people cannot simply choose to stop breathing for an indefinite period of time.

4.

Dualism may have been a very appealing theory during Descartes time, but modern scientific knowledge makes dualism a very difficult philosophy to embrace. The idea of dualism does not fit in very well with the modern scientific view of the universe. It has a number of properties that make it highly dubious. Some of the arguments are given below. First, dualism presupposes that there is no real physical mind; it is distinct from the body. This is important to understand, because dualism is not separating the brain from the body; the brain is part of the body. Instead, dualism separates the mind from the body. Therefore, one must wonder how the mind, which is not physical, is able to interact with the body at all. Descartes' original theory was that this interaction took place in the pineal gland, and, when that was proven false, simply relied upon the God argument. However, as science developed and people came to understand that specific parts of the brain controlled specific body functions and that removing those parts of the brain could make it impossible for the body to move those things. Therefore, the brain itself was clearly inexorably linked to certain body functions.

5. The main character of Memento is a person with some type of memory disorder. He believes that he can remember events that happened prior to when he was attacked, but is unable to form new memories. He appears to be a man named Leonard Shelby who was once an insurance investigator. He is covered in tattoos and his room is littered in notes and photographs. For Locke, being requires a continuity of consciousness, which Leonard does not have, though he attempts to approximate it by covering himself in tattoos and having the pictures and notes available for himself to review. Locke discusses the idea of personal accountability when he talks about consciousness, and that is certainly an issue that is addressed in the film. Is Leonard morally responsible for actions that he took that he cannot recall? What about when that person is manipulated by others who understand the lack of continuity? For example, Sammy Jankis' wife tested Sammy's retrograde amnesia by asking him to repeatedly inject her with insulin, which could kill her. If he does so, having previously injected her but having no memory of it because of his lack of continuity, is he responsible for that?

Williams would respond that Leonard still have being because he still has a body. The fact that he lacks continuity does not deprive him of relevance. First, he has connections to his past. Second, he has used his body as a means of helping establish continuity to his life outside of the window. In the movie, when questioned about his desire for vengeance for his wife's murder, because he will not be able to remember getting that vengeance, the character's response is that his actions still have meaning and relevance. Perhaps there is a continuity that is more important than the continuity of thought. In the movie, the character is certainly continuous in character, even without a memory. Moreover, Leonard needs his body. He has literally turned his body into a walking memory. Williams's response is convincing, because Leonard does continue to have a real being after losing his sense of continuity.

6.

Reductive physicalists believe that everything is physical. Therefore, everything can be described by the laws of nature. For the philosophy of mind, mental states and processes can be reduced to physical states and processes. After significant contemplation, I honestly cannot answer the question of whether Being John Malkovich does or does not undermine the physicalist conception of the mind. One the one hand, Craig's presence inside John Malkovich's head and his ability to process Malkovich's sensations and control his actions seems to support exactly the type of "ghost in the machine" dualism that is rejected by materialism. However, on a deeper philosophical level, the physicalist conception of the mind reduces though to a series of physical actions. In many ways, that makes all people puppets that are being manipulated by external stimuli and have no real control over their own behavior, even if they maintain the illusion of control. After all, while it may seem like Craig is in charge of John Malkovich, the viewer cannot help but wonder if someone has a portal into Craig's brain and is manipulating him in much the same way that he manipulates John Malkovich. Therefore, the movie seems to both support and undermine the physicalist conception of the mind.

7.

In his article about what it is like to be a bat, Nagel makes the argument that one could never know what it is like to be a bat due because consciousness is subjective. Even imaging what it is like to be a bat is limited, because any human being imagining what it is like to be a bat is, at heart, a human being engaged in a conscious act of imagination. For example, imagining webbing on one's arm, as Nagel suggests, involves a human being, who has never had webbing on his arm, imagining that. Being John Malkovich puts someone in a between-state. After all, the passengers in John Malkovich lack the continuity of his experience; therefore they are not actually John Malkovich himself. Despite that limitation, for a limited period of time, those passengers are able to experience the same things that John Malkovich experiences. They may not be able to fully understand what it is like to be John Malkovich, but they can understand what it is like to be John Malkovich for 15 minutes, which is certainly more than what a person could imagine about a bat in Nagel's article. However, it seems highly improbable that any human being would believe that their entire life experience, their entire being, could be summed up in any 15 minute synopsis of their lives. Therefore, one cannot be John Malkovich anymore than one could be a bat. Craig is simply being Craig, inside of John Malkovich's head, and with the ability to manipulate John Malkovich's body. This notion seems to find support in the movie, because John Malkovich wants the trespassers out of his head. If the trespassers actually were John Malkovich, even for that brief period of time during which they inhabited John Malkovich's head, then they would either desire to be out of his head or John Malkovich would not have the desire to have them out of his head at that time, which is not what occurs in the movie. Instead, John Malkovich and the trespassers can both be inside John Malkovich's head and have conflicting thoughts, proving that the trespassers can never be John Malkovich.