Is What You See Real or Memorex?

We have polar philosophers and variant ideas from each of the philosophers, similar in some carriages, vastly different in others and yet their ideas make a person think, as they be supposed to moreover what if neither Rene Descartes, George Berkeley or doubting Thomas Reid atomic number 18 purify in their entirety? What if twain personal manners of thinking are in truth 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 humane k instantaneouslyledge are examined. Human intimacy in the aspect of the authorized humans is limited.There is no superstar on Earth who knows perpetuallyything whether it be sincere or imagined. (Rene Descartes dogma of indep land upent external orb) This would receive limited in any(prenominal) thought provoking conversation. If you were to ask people at random, if in that location is anything they know with matter of course, t hey 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 didnt just perceive these instances they would chance to look at you like you were risky solely in the end there is also a perception. maintain the manikin of the mind independent external world and ask yourself that if you died, would things in the world remain personally the homogeneous? The bed you slept in might until it was destroyed, the raise in which you lived may remain a house save what close to you as a person, you would non remain physically the same so in that view a mind independent world cannot be 100% accurate. One day you can dupe yourself in a mirror because you are alive, the next day you cannot because you are dead.On the other hand, you entrance things and accept them to be out in the world exclusively what you give away is only a perception which lends credence to Thomas Reids conjecture. Thomas Reid be lieves that we do not need deduction to acquire knowledge and I agree and as you will cod by the following poem, the time of perception may almost destroy Descartes and Berkleys theories. See how that worked, I believe the following poem will destroy a conjecture and this is perception. NOW What has been and what will be, cannot be changed, cannot be disclosen.For yesterday is g mavin and through with(p) and tomorrow lies beyond the sun, yet there is existence, that fine line amidst 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 entirely transmit shadows, vibrations they receive, along the neural networks, for the judgement to be deceived into thinking that what we see and are believing and what we hear tho do we perceive reality or only what we think is there? straightway a millisecond past, from eye or ear to mind and another billisecond just for the brain to define, so wha t we perceive as happening is at to the lowest degree a millisecond past. We cannot exist within the now, our reactions arent that fast. So is what we see a segment of history by the time we can perceive or do our senses touch the future, which do you believe? Either way its plain to me that there is no now to be found. We live two separate multiplication so wherefore are we so bound? Now that Ive given over you a thought to twist your mind, I essential say excuse the pun, Im scarce out of time.(Original copy beneficial 1999 Cara Tapken-(Teirsha=pen) ) In reading this poem, where is the certainty now as all at one time a lot of questions have been posed and suddenly a whole new-fangled thought process will rise into the metaphysical sense of perception. Take another example of looking at a field or horizon of trees, or any free radical 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 practically(prenominal) defined 3-D quality?Each one will see this differently at different times which lends move on conveyance of truth to the supernatural touch sensations and so with this in mind where does Descartes and Berkley oblige into this picture? Let us use deity as an example. divinity is definitely a perception. Many of us believe in him, umpteen of us think he is almighty and the basis of religion but international 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 immortal? Do we see theology there with an outstretched hand in receiving? Also, Descartes believed in God and God was the centrifuge of his Roman Catholic corporate trust and theory so in believing in God, when God is a perception and written words frankincense 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 perception and certainty, how can these philosophers be wrong and mightily at the same time by authorise one anothers theories and if there is a validation of theories whence 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 turn up 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 wr ong.Did we just mess up two theories away, add to them or validate all or secernate 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 brain can define (CL Tapken). Now Clifford is famed for his evidentialist thesis that It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient state. (W. K. Clifford). I only if would like to know where Cliffords justification is for telling people that they way they think or how they think, simply because there is a lose 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 malignant neoplastic disease 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 wh ich is highly conflicting with the continual forward progress of science. Now Berkleys 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 doesnt need complete certainty for some knowledge and he calls this the law 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 git everything that happens? Perception and staidness denounces, in part, if not all of Berkleys theory that God is behind everything. The Bible and those who believe in the religion of God ag ree 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 holdd gravity. Gravity makes the world spin thus creating the accidental gravity. God did not create gravity by design so now it should be safely said that gravity began as a perception that saturnine 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 Berkleys theory. Look at the scale that sits in the doctors office. The knowledge to make the scale would be in conjunction with Berkleys 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 dont 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 totally wrong and incoherent in my let opinions and beliefs.Maybe I have no concrete evidence or cannot in full 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, absent-minded 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 sy stems 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 boldness of my own views and will form their own philosophies.Philosophy is just that, no one is right and no one is wrong it is simply a belief system of how we work minus any factual sciences or the appendix 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/apologe tics/sciencefaith. html Tapken, Cara. The Starlite Cafe 1999 (http//www. thestarlitecafe. com/poems/ one hundred five/poem_91080479. html Theories of perception. September 2008. http//www. unc. edu/megw/TheoriesofPerception. html