Perception of Distinctions

The past few days I’ve gotten to read some more intensive philosophical books.  This is always fun for me, since I love philosophy.  There is only one drawback to reading such books: I tend to have trouble falling asleep because of how many thoughts go racing through my mind after an evening of reading philosophy!

Anyway, as is often the case, I got to thinking about philosophical issues that really have nothing to do with the topics of the books I’m reading (although I suppose in a way they do relate superficially).  For instance, I just read a bunch of linguistic philosophy, as well as philosophy on libertarian free-will.

So what did I think about while I tried to go to sleep?  The idea of the perception of distinctions.  Don’t ask me why :-)  But I thought it was an enjoyable mental exercize nonetheless.

Several years ago, when I had a different domain, I had an informal discussion board where quite a few atheists joined.  For some reason, the atheists tended to be Ayn Rand devotees.  I remember one of them, who now runs a blog called Incinerating Presuppositionalism, bringing up the typical Randian arguments of “A is A” etc.

Naturally, I agree that A is A.  This is a useful tautology as it is the Law of Identity.

At question, however, is this: how do we know that A is A?

By this, I do not mean ”how do we as humans know that A is A?”  This is one of those “self-evident” truths.  We see an object and we can tell that an object is what the object is.

Instead, what I mean by this question is something more fundamental.  What is the process by which consciousness can detect distinctions in objects?  Human beings are already built with the necessary “equipment” to enable us to recognize distinctions in objects; but how did this come about?

This is extremely important when we deal with our presuppositions, especially as we deal with atheistic presuppositions.  But in order to see it correctly, perhaps it is useful to give a demonstration first.

Let us suppose that there is a computer hooked up to a video camera.  The video camera functions as an “eye” and the computer as a brain.  Suppose that the camera is placed on a black table facing a black wall so that the only thing that shows up on the computer screen is a black box.  Now suppose that someone puts a red ball on the table. 

Does the computer determine a distinction between the red ball and the black background?

Let us look at this as basically as possible.  If the computer reproduces the image on a computer screen, we can say that the computer does “see” a distinction between the red ball and the black background, and that distinction is found in the recreation of the red on the computer screen.

But what is required in order for the computer to “see” the difference so that it can display the difference?  There must be some programming in place that allows the computer to tell the difference.  There must be programming that enables the computer to take the sensory data given through the camera and filter it to “see” that section X is “red” and section Y is “not-red.”

Thus, there must be programming pre-existing in the computer in order for the computer to differentiate between a red ball and the black background.  This programming is necessary even if the camera records the objects perfectly.  The hardware can work, but if the software does not know what to do with the “impulse” the screen will stay blank.  The method of gaining the visual insight is not the interpretation of that visual data.

Our minds work the same way.  Supposedly, logic arose when a prehistoric man looked at a rock and thought, “Rock” and looked at a tree and thought “Tree” and figured out that a “Rock” was not the same thing as a “Tree.”  In other words, logic began when prehistoric man realized identity and could tell “A is A” and “A is not non-A.”

The only problem with that is, as demonstrated with the computer analogy, the mind of the prehistoric man must have already been “wired” to see that there was a distinction in order for prehistoric man to know that there is a distinction.  Simply having good enough eyes was not sufficient.  The mind had to be able to make the determination in the data before the mind could understand there was a distinction in the data.

If a mind does not know that there is a distinction between “red” and “black” then even if the eye sees a ball on a black table, the mind will not perceive the distinction.  The ability to make distinctions must precede the actual distinctions.  In order to “see” a distinct object, the mind must somehow know that there ought to be a distinct object.

How does the mind come to this knowledge?  It cannot be through the distinction because it must pre-exist the distinction!

I will have more to say on this later, but for now I am out of time :-(