I'M IN THE PROCESS OF RADICALLY
RETHINKING MY VIEW OF THE MIND.
BUT THE IDEA THAT OUR
PRESENT PICTURE OF THE MIND
THAT WE MENTIONED EARLIER
IN THE CONVERSATION,
THAT OUR PRESENT
PICTURE OF THE MIND
IS TERRIBLY SHAPED BY THE
17TH CENTURY, BY DESCARTES,
HAS BEEN COMING BACK TO ME.
BECAUSE MORE AND
MORE, IT SEEMS TO ME
THAT WE STILL ACCEPT
TOO MUCH OF THIS VIEW.
AND I WOULD HAVE TO GO
BACK, BACK UP A LITTLE,
TO SAY WHAT MY NEW VIEW IS.
BECAUSE I WANT TO REJECT THE
WHOLE PICTURE OF SENSATION
ESPECIALLY THAT CAME IN
WITH THE 17TH CENTURY.
THE PICTURE THAT CAME IN-- AND
THEN IT WAS TAKEN OVER THEN
BY-- IT'S NOT A MATTER OF
EMPIRICISTS VERSUS RATIONALISTS
BECAUSE DESCARTES
WAS A RATIONALIST.
BUT THE EMPIRICISTS
TOOK OVER THE FEATURES
THAT I'M GOING TO BE
TALKING ABOUT TOTALLY.
AND I THINK KANT UNFORTUNATELY
KEPT THEM AS WELL.
AND THE PICTURE THAT CAME IN
WAS THAT SOMEHOW, SENSATION
IS ESSENTIALLY INSIDE US.
THE PICTURE IS THAT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THAT SOMETHING,
SAY WHEN YOU LOOK AT
THE BOOKS BEHIND ME,
YOU HAVE SENSATIONS WHICH CAME
TO BE CONCEIVED OF AS SOMETHING
TAKING PLACE IN
AN INNER THEATER.
AS WE SAY, INSIDE THE
HEAD, OR INSIDE THE MIND,
AND WE PASS BACK AND FORTH.
WE INTERCHANGE THESE.
AND IN ORDINARY
LANGUAGE, THAT'S FINE.
BUT THE PICTURE IS THAT--
AND BERKELEY AND HUME
EXPLOIT THIS TO
DEVASTATING EFFECT
TO CREATE SKEPTICAL PROBLEMS
THAT HAUNT US TO THIS DAY.
I THINK, OK.
IF THE BOOK THAT I SEE
IS REALLY INSIDE MY HEAD,
IS IT OR IS IT NOT LIKE
THE BOOK OUT THERE?
AND IF THE OLDER VIEW WAS,
YES, THE PICTURE YOU SEE
IS INSIDE YOUR HEAD, BUT IT
RESEMBLES THE PHYSICAL BOOK
OUT THERE, THEN
BERKELEY WOULD SAY, OH.
SO A MENTAL IMAGE CAN
RESEMBLE A PHYSICAL OBJECT.
HOW IS THAT?
AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD SAY,
OH, THAT'S A TERRIBLE QUESTION.
ONCE YOU EVEN RAISE THAT
QUESTION, YOU'RE LOST.
YOU MUSTN'T EVEN ASK
WHETHER THE MENTAL BOOK,
THE BOOK INSIDE YOUR HEAD, IS OR
IS NOT LIKE THE BOOK OUT THERE.
BUT THEN THE BOOK OUT
THERE, IT BECOMES WHAT?
A THING IN ITSELF-- AND
SUDDENLY THE WHOLE WORLD
BECOMES, AS IT WERE, TAKEN AWAY
FROM US, BECOMES PROBLEMATIC.
AND YOU HAVE THIS
BIG DISCUSSION.
DO WE REALLY KNOW THERE'S
AN EXTERNAL WORLD?
AND I WANT TO RETURN
TO A VIEW THAT I
THINK IS-- AT LEAST WAS NOT SO
UNCOMMON IN ANCIENT MEDIEVAL
PHILOSOPHY THAT I THINK HAS BEEN
LOST AS A POSSIBILITY TO US.
WHICH IS THAT WE
ACTUALLY SEE BOOKS.
THAT WE ACTUALLY EXPERIENCE
THE EXTERNAL WORLD AND NOT
JUST AN INTERNAL
REPRESENTATION OF IT.
I MEAN, THAT MEANS
RETHINKING A LOT OF THINGS.
AND I HAVE SOME HELP
FROM CURRENT SCIENCE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE MEDIEVALS
CLAIMED-- I'M SORRY.
DESCARTES CLAIMED, AND
PHILOSOPHERS AFTER DESCARTES
RIGHT THROUGH BERTRAND
RUSSELL CLAIMED,
THAT MODERN SCIENCE SHOWS
THAT OBJECTS AREN'T COLORED.
AND THAT ALREADY
TAKES AWAY THE WORLD.
BECAUSE WE SEE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE BOOKS
BEHIND ME, WHAT YOU SEE
IS FIRST THE SURFACES
AND THE COLORED SURFACES.
AND IF YOU SAY, OH,
THAT ISN'T REALLY
A PROPERTY OF THOSE BOOKS,
I MEAN, THOSE COLORS,
THAT YOU'VE ALREADY
GONE A LONG WAY
TO MAKING THE EXTERNAL WORLD
THIS PROBLEMATIC THING, THAT WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.
AND IT OCCURRED TO ME, YEAH.
BUT NOBODY SAYS THAT
THINGS DON'T REALLY
HAVE A TEMPERATURE ANYMORE.
TEMPERATURE WAS ANOTHER OF
THOSE SECONDARY QUALITIES.
AND NOBODY REALLY
SAYS THAT THINGS
DON'T HAVE THE
TEMPERATURE ANYMORE.
AND WHY NOT?
WELL, BECAUSE WE IN FACT FOUND
AN ACCOUNT OF TEMPERATURE OTHER
THAN JUST SAYING, WELL,
THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT IT
WHICH DISPOSES US TO
HAVE CERTAIN SENSATIONS.
AND I THINK THERE'S NOW A LOT
OF WORK ON THE NATURE OF COLOR
WHICH ACTUALLY MAKES COLOR
MUCH MORE OBJECTIVE THAN IT
USED TO LOOK.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE OLD STORY WAS,
WELL, COLOR IS VERY SUBJECTIVE.
AND WHEN YOU SAY
THAT THIS IS RED,
YOU MEAN IT HAS A DISPOSITION
TO PRODUCE A CERTAIN SENSATION.
BUT THERE IS A SENSE IN WHICH
COLOR IS NOT VERY SUBJECTIVE.
I MEAN, IF I GO WALKING
IN THE WOODS WITH YOU,
AND THE LIGHT IS COMING
THROUGH THE LEAVES
SO THE LIGHT IS VERY
GREENISH, YOUR FACE WILL NOT
CHANGE APPARENT COLOR VERY MUCH.
IN FACT, I HAVE TO
OVERRIDE MECHANISMS
WHICH SOME NEUROLOGISTS
NOW BELIEVE
ARE IN THE EYE ITSELF
TO BE A GOOD PAINTER,
AND PERCEIVE HOW
MUCH GREENISH LIGHT
IS BEING REFLECTED
FROM YOUR SKIN.
AND SIMILARLY, SAY IF IT'S
DAWN AND A BEAUTIFUL SUNRISE--
OR SUNSET IS BETTER.
A BEAUTIFUL SUNSET--
WE'RE WALKING
ON THE BEACH, AN ENORMOUS
AMOUNT OF ORANGE LIGHT
IS FALLING ON YOUR SKIN, I
DON'T SEE YOUR FACE AS ORANGE.
IN FACT, GOETHE, IN
HIS BOOK ON COLOR,
NOTICED A LOT OF THESE
THINGS, AND WAS DISMISSED JUST
AS A ROMANTIC-- HE
DIDN'T KNOW WHAT
HE'S TALKING ABOUT--
FOR CENTURIES.
IT NOW TURNS OUT THAT
THE EYE ITSELF, AT LEAST
ACCORDING TO JEROME
LETTVIN, WHO IS
ONE OF THE GREAT NEUROLOGISTS,
FORMERLY AT MIT, NOW
AT RUTGERS, THAT THE EYE ITSELF
AUTOMATICALLY COMPENSATES
FOR ALL OF THESE CHANGES
IN THE AMBIENT LIGHT
SO AS TO TRY TO ESTIMATE WHAT HE
CALLS OBJECTIVE REFLECTANCIES.
THAT THE COLORS OF THINGS,
OR MORE PRECISELY THE COLORS
FROM A CERTAIN POSITION,
ARE AS AN OBJECTIVE
A PROPERTY OF THOSE THINGS
AS THEIR TEMPERATURE IS.
I MEAN, IT ALWAYS
TAKES PHILOSOPHY
A WHILE TO CATCH UP WITH
CHANGES IN THE SCIENTIFIC IMAGE.
BUT I THINK THAT ALL THE
ARGUMENTS FOR THIS WHOLE IDEA
THAT YOU CAN'T SEE,
THAT COLORS ARE NOT
REAL PROPERTIES OF
EXTERNAL THINGS,
THAT WE CAN'T PERCEIVE REAL
PROPERTIES OF EXTERNAL THINGS,
AND ALL THE PROPERTIES WE
PERCEIVE ARE REALLY INSIDE US,
ARE A COMBINATION OF OUTMODED
SCIENCE AND MISTAKEN ARGUMENTS.
AND WE HAVE TO SEE OUR
WAY BACK TO THE SENSE,
TO THE IDEA THAT IT'S
PHILOSOPHICALLY RESPECTABLE
TO CLAIM WE HAVE UNMEDIATED
ACCESS TO THE EXTERNAL WORLD.
SO THAT'S ONE CHANGE
IN MY VIEW OF THE MIND.
IT SAYS IT DOESN'T DENY THAT
MENTAL PROPERTIES, SAY WHAT YOU
PERCEIVE, DEPENDS ON
PHYSICAL PROCESSES.
BUT IT SAYS, WITH JOHN DEWEY,
THAT THE PHYSICAL PROCESSES
AREN'T ALL INSIDE THE BRAIN.
WHAT I CEDE IS TRANSACTIONAL
IN DEWEY'S TERM.
THAT IT'S THE WHOLE TRANSACTION,
THE WHOLE INTERACTION
BETWEEN MYSELF AND WHAT I'M
LOOKING AT, OR TOUCHING,
OR HEARING, OR TASTING,
OR SMELLING, ET CETERA,
THAT IS THE, AS IT
WERE, PHYSICAL BASIS
FOR THE EXPERIENCE.
IF YOU LIKE, OUR EXPERIENCES
AREN'T JUST INSIDE OUR SKIN.
