Is What You See Real or Memorex?

We have different philosophers and different ideas from each of the philosophers, similar in some ways, vastly different in others and yet their ideas make a person think, as they are supposed to but what if neither Rene Descartes, George Berkeley or Thomas Reid are correct in their entirety? What if both ways of thinking are actually linked together enough to make them both correct and both incorrect?Let us start with the definition of epistemology where the origins of nature and limits of human knowledge are examined. Human knowledge in the aspect of the real world is limited.There is no one on Earth who knows everything whether it be real or imagined. (Rene Descartes belief of independent external world) This would become limited in any thought provoking conversation. If you were to ask people at random, if there is anything they know with certainty, they would say yes. They know for certain they are sitting or talking or looking at you or the tree. If you asked them if they were sure that they didn’t just perceive these instances they would chance to look at you like you were crazy but in the end there is also a perception.Take the example of the mind independent external world and ask yourself that if you died, would things in the world remain physically the same? The bed you slept in might until it was destroyed, the house in which you lived may remain a house but what about you as a person, you would not remain physically the same so in that view a mind independent world cannot be 100% accurate. One day you can see yourself in a mirror because you are alive, the next day you cannot because you are dead.On the other hand, you see things and believe them to be out in the world but what you see is only a perception which lends credence to Thomas Reid’s theory. Thomas Reid believes that we do not need certainty to acquire knowledge and I agree and as you will see by the following poem, the timing of perception may almost destroy Descartes and B erkley’s theories. See how that worked, I believe the following poem will destroy a theory and this is perception. NOW What has been and what will be, cannot be changed, cannot be seen.For yesterday is gone and done and tomorrow lies beyond the sun, yet there is reality, that fine line between futures and past that we define as now. The eyes have never seen, nor the ears ever heard, the falling of a star or the calling of a bird. They merely transmit shadows, vibrations they receive, along the neural networks, for the brain to be deceived into thinking that what we see and are believing and what we hear; but do we perceive reality or only what we think is there?Now a millisecond past, from eye or ear to mind and another billisecond just for the brain to define, so what we perceive as happening is at least a millisecond past. We cannot exist within the now, our reactions aren't that fast. So is what we see a piece of history by the time we can perceive or do our senses touch t he future, which do you believe? Either way it's plain to me that there is no now to be found. We live two separate times so why are we so bound? Now that I've given you a thought to twist your mind, I must say excuse the pun, I'm simply out of time.(Original copyright 1999 Cara Tapken-(Teirsha=pen) ) In reading this poem, where is the certainty now as suddenly a lot of questions have been posed and suddenly a whole new thought process will evolve into the metaphysical sense of perception. Take another example of looking at a field or horizon of trees, or any group of trees for that manner, how do they look? Ok so they look like trees but in seeing the trees do you see them as you might if there is no 3 dimensional quality or do you see them with a much defined 3-D quality?Each one will see this differently at different times which lends further conveyance of truth to the supernatural beliefs and so with this in mind where does Descartes and Berkley fit into this picture? Let us use God as an example. God is definitely a perception. Many of us believe in him, many of us think he is almighty and the basis of religion but outside of pictures for one, do we really know what he looks like? This is a form of perception as we do not know with certainty what he looks like but we only know from pictures and words of description. What of prayer?How do we really know that prayer works even though we believe? Do we see our prayers physically being listened to by God? Do we see God there with an outstretched hand in receiving? Also, Descartes believed in God and God was the centrifuge of his Roman Catholic faith and theory so in believing in God, when God is a perception and written words then how can Descartes claim the theories he does because suddenly there is no certainty. The Roman catholic faith believes in archangels, evil and good yet without seeing these in a physical sense whatsoever how can one obtain certainty in knowledge or vice versa?With regard to percepti on and certainty, how can these philosophers be wrong and right at the same time by validating one another’s theories and if there is a validation of theories then do they suddenly have related theories to for a whole new theory? Descrates believes in no knowledge without certainty and Reid believes in perception. Take into account of the poem which is a perception based poem with much pointing towards the reality of how our human brain, through proven science, works. Suddenly there is the certainty in knowledge and how perception works and is very real. Both philosophers are now correct and both are now wrong.Did we just blow two theories away, add to them or validate all or part of the theories these two obviously share? Mind independent external world does exist to a degree but as well, only by the degree of perception until the â€Å"brain can define† (CL Tapken). Now Clifford is famous for his evidentialist thesis that â€Å"It is wrong always, everywhere, and fo r anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence. (W. K. Clifford). I simply would like to know where Clifford’s justification is for telling people that they way they think or how they think, simply because there is a lack of evidence, is wrong.I see him as suddenly wrong for being discriminatory in a sense as theory is based upon having no actual evidence for justification as science always dictates. The theory of using cancer cells to treat cancer is nothing but a theory, there is no evidence as it has not yet been tested to be proven but in thinking this way, according to Clifford, is wrong which is highly inconsistent with the continual forward progress of science. Now Berkley’s theory is much more rational in my opinion as he believes in both sides of what you can and cannot see.He believes in the mind and the thought processes that integrate a thought to reality and that one doesn’t need complete certainty for some knowledge and he calls this the la w of nature. He has a belief process in the realm of science but he couples that with a religion to form his belief that all things happen because of God and spirits. Now for those who are quite religious, this would be believed but then there are those who are atheists and or believe in the Darwinism theory of evolution thus suddenly, in either case there is no God.But is Berkeley right, to at least some belief that God is the reason behind everything that happens? Perception and gravity denounces, in part, if not all of Berkley’s theory that God is behind everything. The Bible and those who believe in the religion of God agree that God made the heavens and the earth. We will assume that this is not perception but true. But what of gravity? No where in history is it said that God created gravity. Gravity makes the world spin thus creating the â€Å"accidental† gravity. God did not create gravity by design so now it should be safely said that gravity began as a percept ion that turned scientific.Granted, our thought process began this way of thinking and proving this theory and that in itself would be a god driven theory in using Berkley’s theory. Look at the scale that sits in the doctor’s office. The knowledge to make the scale would be in conjunction with Berkley’s theory but for the scale to remain stationary due to gravity is outside his realm of thought as once again, God did not create gravity, therefore God cannot be behind everything that happens which, in the end once again, lends credence to pure perception.It is a fine line between these philosophers on what they agree and don’t agree with but in the end there are similarities in which makes them all correct in the way of validation so with this in mind, are they all thinking the same thing yet with different answers and does this make them all correct or incorrect because of their different answers? Which do you believe and why? Maybe I am the one who is to tally wrong and incoherent in my own opinions and beliefs.Maybe I have no concrete evidence or cannot fully understand the power of perception, metaphysical, supernatural or inanimate objects, maybe I believe in it all. Does what I believe in make me right, wrong, indifferent or simply this is my belief? Who is to say that I am right or that I disagree and maybe my way of being right or disagreeing is not accepted. We each have our own philosophies of life and the reasons why and this is what makes great debates and the world go around.So in the end I must say that I do not fully agree with any philosopher to date. I may agree with a portion of their principles and systems of belief but at the same time of incorporating my own reasons of this belief or lack of belief I, in my own self have just become a philosopher like everyone else, it is just the people who will determine the validity of my own views and will form their own philosophies.Philosophy is just that, no one is right an d no one is wrong it is simply a belief system of how we work minus any factual sciences or the addition of sciences and religion. As a last thought and question which incorporates all but none of these mentioned philosophers; is there really such a thing as an evil person or are they a person who simply does bad things?In short, I believe to some extent of what these philosophers believe but then again I do not for then I would have to agree with everything they say to fully believe in their philosophy, so am I say they are correct or incorrect? References Evidence for God. Famous Scientists Who Believed in God. (September 2008) http://www. godandscience. org/apologetics/sciencefaith. html Tapken, Cara. The Starlite Cafe 1999 (http://www. thestarlitecafe. com/poems/105/poem_91080479. html Theories of perception. September 2008. http://www. unc. edu/~megw/TheoriesofPerception. html