Brave New World

I was taught in my Education courses that the best way to introduce students to a new topic is to relate the new material to things they already know; make connections. Very much a student, I need to connect this topic of cognition and neuroscience in relation to literature to that which I already know. Thus, this entry will look at the excerpt from René Descartes "Selections from Meditations on First Philosophy" with connections to ideas I already know. This will allow me to better understand what Descartes communicates as well as if I have (or have not) seen his theory in action before.

Having some French training (7 years) I have the happy ability to understand the famous Descartes phrase, "je pense donc je suis." I find the article in question to be the discourse leading up to the assertion of existence of "I think therefore I am." Indeed, the author begins with, "...I am nothing so long as I think that I am something... I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." (21) Descartes establishes consciousness as existence.

He argues this point further through exploration of the physical body. Essentially, the body cannot do anything without the mind. What is the feeling of a hot stove without the mind to tell the "I" that it is hot? I really love how Descartes discusses dreaming as part of consciousness and existence. He acknowledges the power of dreams and how we don't stop "being" when we are asleep, for we still use our mind to dream, thus we still are. "I am a mind, or intelligence, or intellect, or reason- words whose meaning I have been ignorant of until now...a thinking thing." (22)

An discussion I have trouble following ensues just after the one previously mentioned. He questions the "I" the subject he claims to be. I think he asks himself is he of his mind or of his body...which one of these is his I. We cannot know that which we do not know, therefore we cannot be something we do not know we are. For example, if the United States of America banned the word "pancakes" in favor of "flap jack" in 1776, outlawing "pancake" written or oral presence on the continent, I would never know that the round thing I eat with syrup and butter for breakfast (or lunch or dinner) was a pancake, the pancake would never exist. Only a flap jack would because the round thing can't be what I don't know it could be. If I have this right, this is a very interesting argument. Can humans be something that we do not know we are? Can blue be purple if blue thinks it is actually purple?

Social construction is at play here in my mind. I remember a theory of language that said language is only made of differences because that is the only way we can communicate what we mean. The signs must be agreed upon as well. The English language calls a cloud a cloud because it is neither a tree nor a foot nor a sock. The French call a cloud a nuage because it is not a meuble, pomplemousse or chat. The English don't know a cloud as a nuage because that is not what they call it. The cloud cannot say to humans that is actually a nuage and not a cloud, or actually a cloud and not a nuage. The white fluffy thing in the sky is only what we know it as; a construction of our language. Thus, humans can only be that which we have constructed, that is, what we know. We can observe our physical body and (in a sense) hear our consciousness and know both exist.

On the final page of the article, Descartes brings in vision. By using the metaphor of the wax who can change states of matter, he says "that knowledge of the wax comes from what the eye sees, and not from the scrutiny of the mind alone." (24) This written observation (see what I did there? haha) mirrors the argument of knowing and not knowing. Only the brain and the eye together "make" the wax, without either one, the wax does not exist to us because we depend on the two to make the world around us. I connected this to concealing an explosive in a cupcake. Our eyes see the cupcake and the mind confirms it is a delicious pastry treat as well. However, we cannot see the true nature of the malicious frosted mini-cake because we do not know it's true nature, that is the one concealed to us. Now when the cupcake blows up (not harming anyone of course) we have new evidence that we must compromise with our brain and eyes.

What Descartes fails to note is the impact of the other senses as well as memory. Let's say the cupcake looked like a cupcake, but smelled like sulfuric acid? What would we conclude? We might conclude that we have to assume that it is not actually what we think it is. Another person who happened to know his friend used to make cupcake explosives would have different knowledge that us, the unawares. That person may view the treat as a potential threat, despite visual evidence. Also, what if that person yelled, "THAT CUPCAKE IS GOING TO EXPLODE! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE PEOPLE!!" We would give this man a quizzical look and recommend that he gets a good night's rest. I could be splitting hairs here, but I think previous knowledge is an important factor when determining what is real and what is not. Descartes could have learned that wax can melt but stay the same, as in someone told him the properties of wax, rather than his eyes alone telling him.

I find the underlying implications of his revelation strong. I am slightly obsessed with Shakespeare, particularly Hamlet. There is a wonderful quote, "There is not good or bad/but thinking makes it so." The world exists as it is, and the only way for humans to process it is through our senses, which our brain interprets. Descartes also admits that he does not know himself as well as he thought. "I should have a more distinct grasp of things which I realize are doubtful, unknown and foreign to  me, that I have of that which is true and known- my own self." (23) I have to ask, is he really that "true"? We already called into question truth because we can only know what we have evidence of, and that does not necessarily make it "true."But when we think about it, we pass a judgement that makes the action, thing or person true, good, bad, right, wrong or silly.  He also separates the body and mind, unlike later theorists who rejoice in the complex and unknowable joining of the two.

I think Descartes theory is still in society today. When a person decides to pull the plug on someone they know in the hospital because they are a "vegetable," that is they have no more consciousness, some may consider it the right thing to do because the hospitalized person does not exists anymore. After reading articles that question the placement of the mind and soul in relation to the body I feel I am not ready to make my own judgment on what makes a person exist. Or perhaps, I should not question that and simply rejoice in my consciousness, body and dreams.