The Matrix Revisited
In the progressively lousy trilogy about “The Matrix,” (most certainly familiar to any geek who would read this) Neo was unplugged and left the Matrix consisting of zeroes and ones. Instead he enters the “real” world. But in a “God’s eye perspective,” are the liquid-filled pods containing the humans plugged in to the Matrix any more real than the reality provided inside the Matrix? The zeroes and ones make up objects treated as bathtubs, screwdrivers, or any other object – epistemically/ontologically subjective or objective – that Searle can think up. The difference between the two worlds, however, lies partly in a point made by Searle himself in his “defense” of Realism. That is, things outside of the Matrix exist regardless of what humans label them.
The proclamation that nothing has meaning without our interpretation is a monument to human arrogance. Revelation: the physical world doesn’t give a damn of what humans interpret into it; the earth was revolving around the sun long before humans discovered this. Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe we’re wrong about that too. But the point is that it doesn’t matter; things are the way they are, regardless of if we know it or not. Now, for us (insignificant) humans, the construction of the social reality can clearly have consequences. The process of reaching consensus on the labeling of social facts can indeed be as contentious for us humans as it was for the Smurfs (is it a “cork-smurf,” or a “smurf-screw”?). It seems to me that Searle’s point is that the world does indeed consist of objective facts, albeit parallel and forever connected to a social invisible world. Socially constructed facts cannot exist without brute facts, brute facts can, however, exist just fine without socially constructed facts. Again, we humans are utterly insignificant.
In Sweden we have a saying: “All cats are grey in the dark.” I’m not sure what it means, we are a mysterious people and rarely understand each other when we speak. But let’s forget about the deeper meaning, and assume that it simply refers to the nightly lack of enough light particles to create what our humanoid eyes perceive as “color.” Thus, I may see a cat during the day and notice that it is beige, but a few hours later see the same cat and notice it is grey. These are two equally real observations (my eye is convinced it is providing my brain with the correct information), but possibly with very different repercussions. Well, at least there would be if I was a cat-racist, and felt the need to kill all the grey cats in the world; it would then be a matter of life or death for any cat coming my way.
The slightly worn-out example of a tree falling in a forest void of any living creature with ears (does it make a sound?), is easily refuted by any physicist since the argument is, of course, that the laws of physics tell us that sound waves are created regardless of the presence of ears. We know this, supposedly, because every time a tree has fallen and people have been around to hear it, it has created sound waves. Thus, the scientist with his love for inference will conclude that a tree always makes a sound when it falls. The color of the cat, in contrast, is not only dependent on the presence of eyes to see it, but also on the light particles to provide its allergy-inducing fur with a specific color. So does a cat in the dark have any color but grey?
Yes, of course it does. The particles of light only convey an image to be perceived by the seeing eye; they do not create anything. So, in the terms of Searle, that the cat has a color is a “brute fact,” that we perceive it as beige or grey is a “socially constructed fact” that we all agree on and therefore treat as reality. The defense of Realism does not lie in the fact that we all as humans agree on the “socially constructed facts,” and thereby act towards objects as if they are real. In other words, the fact that “God” has been treated as a “real” entity by millions of people does not make him a brute fact.
As for a “mountain” turning out to be a “valley,” the physical world does not care about those labels. In Searle’s terms, a “mountain” is epistemically objective, but ontologically subjective. The mountain itself really cannot be bothered with considering whether it is perceived as a mountain or not (the Beqaa valley in Lebanon, for instance, is not a valley at all, but a plateau between to mountain ridges, is it offended that humans label it a “valley”?).
Nor does the defense of Realism lie in the inevitable acceptance of Realist assumptions in attempts to refute Realism. Instead, it lies in the basic physics of things; there is a “real” world because of observable physics. This world does not change (eroded mountains do not in effect disappear, only their ontologically subjective meaning changes; their fundamental building blocks remain in some form or another), although the human understanding of it may. The socially constructed world, however, is malleable and changes fundamentally over time. This is why the physical world will always be the “real” world; were it any other way Neo should have left the dreary physical world he was brought into, and plugged himself back in to the much more pleasant world created by the Matrix, since it would then be equally real to the physical world. And that, well, that’s just crazy talk!
The proclamation that nothing has meaning without our interpretation is a monument to human arrogance. Revelation: the physical world doesn’t give a damn of what humans interpret into it; the earth was revolving around the sun long before humans discovered this. Or maybe it doesn’t. Maybe we’re wrong about that too. But the point is that it doesn’t matter; things are the way they are, regardless of if we know it or not. Now, for us (insignificant) humans, the construction of the social reality can clearly have consequences. The process of reaching consensus on the labeling of social facts can indeed be as contentious for us humans as it was for the Smurfs (is it a “cork-smurf,” or a “smurf-screw”?). It seems to me that Searle’s point is that the world does indeed consist of objective facts, albeit parallel and forever connected to a social invisible world. Socially constructed facts cannot exist without brute facts, brute facts can, however, exist just fine without socially constructed facts. Again, we humans are utterly insignificant.
In Sweden we have a saying: “All cats are grey in the dark.” I’m not sure what it means, we are a mysterious people and rarely understand each other when we speak. But let’s forget about the deeper meaning, and assume that it simply refers to the nightly lack of enough light particles to create what our humanoid eyes perceive as “color.” Thus, I may see a cat during the day and notice that it is beige, but a few hours later see the same cat and notice it is grey. These are two equally real observations (my eye is convinced it is providing my brain with the correct information), but possibly with very different repercussions. Well, at least there would be if I was a cat-racist, and felt the need to kill all the grey cats in the world; it would then be a matter of life or death for any cat coming my way.
The slightly worn-out example of a tree falling in a forest void of any living creature with ears (does it make a sound?), is easily refuted by any physicist since the argument is, of course, that the laws of physics tell us that sound waves are created regardless of the presence of ears. We know this, supposedly, because every time a tree has fallen and people have been around to hear it, it has created sound waves. Thus, the scientist with his love for inference will conclude that a tree always makes a sound when it falls. The color of the cat, in contrast, is not only dependent on the presence of eyes to see it, but also on the light particles to provide its allergy-inducing fur with a specific color. So does a cat in the dark have any color but grey?
Yes, of course it does. The particles of light only convey an image to be perceived by the seeing eye; they do not create anything. So, in the terms of Searle, that the cat has a color is a “brute fact,” that we perceive it as beige or grey is a “socially constructed fact” that we all agree on and therefore treat as reality. The defense of Realism does not lie in the fact that we all as humans agree on the “socially constructed facts,” and thereby act towards objects as if they are real. In other words, the fact that “God” has been treated as a “real” entity by millions of people does not make him a brute fact.
As for a “mountain” turning out to be a “valley,” the physical world does not care about those labels. In Searle’s terms, a “mountain” is epistemically objective, but ontologically subjective. The mountain itself really cannot be bothered with considering whether it is perceived as a mountain or not (the Beqaa valley in Lebanon, for instance, is not a valley at all, but a plateau between to mountain ridges, is it offended that humans label it a “valley”?).
Nor does the defense of Realism lie in the inevitable acceptance of Realist assumptions in attempts to refute Realism. Instead, it lies in the basic physics of things; there is a “real” world because of observable physics. This world does not change (eroded mountains do not in effect disappear, only their ontologically subjective meaning changes; their fundamental building blocks remain in some form or another), although the human understanding of it may. The socially constructed world, however, is malleable and changes fundamentally over time. This is why the physical world will always be the “real” world; were it any other way Neo should have left the dreary physical world he was brought into, and plugged himself back in to the much more pleasant world created by the Matrix, since it would then be equally real to the physical world. And that, well, that’s just crazy talk!
posted by Hardig at 12:41 PM
1 Comments:
I would say that color and sound are both not brute facts since it depends on the reception by the individual to exists. Color must reflect and refract in the lenses of the eye which send impulses to the brain. Sound must interact with the eardrum and again send neural transmissions that result it "noise" or "sound". The perception of color and sound requires another being to process the sound or light waves and interpret them, so how do we know it really exists if we can't verify it without these various levels of interference?
Post a Comment
<< Home