SCI199Y: Computational Reality, Illusion and Deception

Assignment 4

Due: 11:59pm, Friday 14 January 2011

We have already spent a lot of time discussing and perhaps even reaching some consensus on what we mean by "reality". In recent lectures and in these notes. I motivated a discussion about reality by suggesting various components or modalities of it, namely personal reality (that aspect of reality we experience and understand directly through mind and body), social reality (additional constructions by people that allow us to function within a collective reality beyond that of individuals), and universal reality (the kitchen sink that contains all that is and all that can be). I put together this amalgam with the views of several philosophers in mind, including (to drop a few names) Searle, Descartes, Hume, Nagel, Kant, Berkeley, Aristotle and Plato--not with the intention of getting them all to agree with me as much as to provide a sandbox in which to play with their ideas and yours.

Although in my strawman discussion I positioned these modalities as if they were clearly distinguished and separable, there is certainly no requirement for them to be. They are placeholders for a jumble of concepts that we clearly must be prepared to deal with if we are to think seriously about what reality entails.

For example, one might subscribe to the belief that all reality is personal reality. Indeed, one could believe (as did David Hume) that the only "reliable" reality is exactly and only the mental construction that agrees with direct sensory experience. That such a construction by one person agrees with another's (including the sense of time and space and physical things) could well be complete coincidence. For that matter there may not even be an "other" to worry about -- perhaps there is no reality external to the mental constructions of an individual! Someone subscribing to such a belief may have little patience with the notion of a social or universal reality.

On the other hand, one might instead believe that reality is a single, vastly complex, physically-harmonious cosmos that is presented to all things in the same way; however, we can only achieve a coarse approximation of that cosmos through our own senses, our brains, the instruments we build, and the social structures in which we participate. Thus we may well construct different representations of this single presentation, but whether through selective processes such as evolution, or psychic or spiritual or intellectual insights, we may well develop a consensus on what that reality actually is.

Prior to digging deeply into this assignment, I suggest you read Thomas Nagel's paper "What is it like to be a bat?" The paper is a bit tough to get through in spots, and even if Nagel's knowledge of the perceptual physiology of bats is somewhat lacking, it provides an excellent alternative source to our discussions in class and in the notes.

Now, look at the model diagram that I presented in class: PDF / PPT (p. 4). Criticise that diagram. Present a least one but preferably more criticisms of it in addition to any points of agreement you may have. Then take stock of your criticisms to transform the diagram into something that is closer to your belief. You are welcome to eliminate elements from it, add elements to it, or create your own diagram from scratch. Now discuss how the various elements in your diagram influence each other. Specifically comment on how the artifacts of science and engineering (e.g., computers, television, social media, MRI or CT scanners, video games, mobile phones, prosthetics, eyeglasses, hearing aids, portable music/video players) play a role in the influence among elements. Is reality extended by our artifacts or does it stay the same? Likewise, how do art, literature, and film play a role in the influence among elements? How contingent is your model for reality on your ability to perceive, reason and act as you do? How then do you think that other species (e.g., Nagel's bat, gorilla, snake, cockroach or the strange visual world of some shrimp) would 'evaluate' your diagram, were they able to communicate it to you?