Works Cited (the formatting of this is off due to the website capabilities)

Aaronson, Isaac. "Perception." The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, vol. 11, no. 2, 1914, pp. 37-46. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/2013228. Accessed 13 Feb. 2020.

​

Durston, Sarah, and Ton Baggerman. "What Is Reality?" The Universe, Life and Everything...: Dialogues on Our Changing Understanding of Reality, Amsterdam UP, 2017, pp. 7-14. JSTOR, doi:10.2307/j.ctv8pz9v8.3. Accessed 12 Feb. 2020.

​

Ruse, Michael. "Do Organisms Exist?" American Zoologist, vol. 29, no. 3, 1989, pp. 1061-66. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3883504. Accessed 14 Feb. 2020.

​

Shields, David. "Memory." Columbia: A Journal of Literature and Art, no. 46, 2009, pp. 32-36. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41807718. Accessed 14 Feb. 2020.

​

Wrinch, Dorothy. "EXISTENCE." The Monist, vol. 29, no. 1, 1919, pp. 141-45. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27900730. Accessed 10 Feb. 2020.

 

EXISTENCE

     A few of the key points in this article touch on the questions and assumptions revolving around existence. It’s argued that what’s fairly predictable is primary existence, and if something doesn't correlate with the sense data of a situation, that makes it unreal (when inferences usually true turn out to be false). An example that was touched on was this phrase of “the round square does not exist.” It says that there is this entity that does not exist, but it’s a part of the original proposition and in that a part of it is established of this imaginary object. Additionally, another point was that there are so many things we won’t see in the motion of an object yet we will still have the sensation of “seeing the object there.” It says we shouldn’t assume primary existence, but look around at what is given and logically construct from that data. It ends saying that some existence doesn’t belong to the world of sensation.

     This gives me a baseline starting point on the topic of existence. While it’s really dense and complex, with a lot of parts I’m confused about, it gives me a baseline idea that I can keep in mind and roll with when looking at other things as a part of my project. Having this as a framework, it’ll hopefully influence how I see other things in a positive way that impacts my journey through this exploration in beneficial and intellectual ways.

 

What is reality?

     Some of what this source is saying is that modern day sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology, and are the basis of the accepted theory for reality, that states that reality is built from matter and energy that can cause matter to move, change form, and interact with other matter. Some assumptions come with it: atomism/materialism: that everything is made up of mindless separable pieces of matter, and that those matters are made up of smaller levels; determinism: that there is a basic set of physical laws predicting the behavior of physical properties, like gravity or cause and effect; and absolute nature of space and time: that these are measurable and independent, and form the stage for the material processes, and immune to events taking place on it, and this one is the most intuitive, with time happening and us not affecting it. Back in the old days, the world used to be a magical and potentially fearful place, with the super nature affecting things; it was not a physical place, but a place run by an external force. We are all trying to give meaning into our lives by combining existing possibilities into new ones. Some are researching how conscious minds can influence the evolution of the physical universe.

     This feels like a good source for me to keep in mind and use because it sets some guidelines on how we currently view reality, as a physical place made of components and working mechanisms that explain things, rather than a place of magic or chances that’s ruled by an outside force. While this may be a more scientific explanation, it gives me that side of the argument which is valuable to have when comparing how humanity views the topic.

 

Perception

     Perception obviously applies to living organisms. We have three different types of reactions: involuntary, reflex, and voluntary. The first happens thematically under all conditions, the second happens when there’s a disturbance in the organism’s environment, and the last happens when it’s impossible to predict the behavior of the organism. Sometimes we only know the consequence of the unknown act. Perception is the process of a living organism that allows it to solve problems the environment presents. It’s an act of adjustment, and affects our choices in the present and future. Later on it’s argued that “perception is a temporal. Process that opens up new things to stimulate us. It is a progressive discovery of values or revelation of reality…It’s conditioned by the quality of the sensory situation before and after the perception.” Additionally, consequences of previous responses to types of disturbances affect the new and present actions of the organism to avoid that outcome.

     Part of my question is looking at how our perception and reactions to existence or humanity’s view of that, and how that reflects humanity’s knowledge and idea on the topic. Knowing about perception is key to that, and this gave me a good reference to bounce on to look at. While a lot of examples are pretty complex, some of the baseline definitions are useful and will contribute towards my final thesis.

 

Memory

     Memory is the past rewritten in the direction of feeling. For humans, it’s driven by emotional self-interest, providing evidence to support our understanding of the world that our heart is set on, even if it’s somewhat removed from reality. They have an apparent but not so narrative structure, and can keep the narrative the same on each act of remembering, but not to keep it in the order it originally happened. Sometimes we think of memory as a recorder that we can replay, but sometimes we only remember things in verbal form rather than images.Typically, what’s stored in memory isn’t the events, but how they fit in our experience. Memories are based on loss; we remember something once thought forgotten, and bring it back from the “oblivion.” Typically remembering comes from an object or experience, since they come from that original memory. Typically, they aren’t replicas of what we originally experienced, they’re what our minds turn them into. A quote from Freud: We have no memories from our childhood, only memories that pertain to our childhood. Is a story merely a memory of a memory? How can a memory, which is grounded in an image and which rings so true to me, be false? If this is false, then what is truth? And why does this matter? Fiction vs nonfiction; What if this happened, vs this may have happened. To quote the article: “I don’t seek to tell the best story. I seek to tell a story that once was. I seek to fill a place that once had meaning with meaning again.”

     This is helpful to me because it pinpoints another potentially key component of my topic: memories. I’ve always wondered about the relationship between reality and memory, and where exactly fact becomes fiction if so. It’s an interesting idea to dive into and this source gives me a very easy to understand yet worthy argument for memories, which will definitely come in handy later on.

 

Do Organisms Exist?

     We could know and assume things exist. But what is it about organisms that make them exist? Sometimes, answers to this question blend biology and philosophy. Biochemists have shown that organisms are made of the same materials of everything else. Perhaps organisms are just a human centered conceit of ignorant human nature. We may never get a true answer. It’s argued that we are more than just molecules of inorganic substances, and that organisms exist, and are different. Ontological reductionists claim that material objects are all that exists, which goes against some big religions. Vitalism is an argument against this, claiming that life does seem different from non-life. But some claim they are redundant. Many argue that a non-human animal has minds, but some things do not have minds. Methodological reductionists say that the bigger can be understood by the smaller. Is there something about the nature of organisms that contrasts them? One philosopher said that living things make up parts of the whole, and the existence of the whole is essential to the preserving of those parts. The whole should be organized, with end directions in mind. Theoretical Reduction says one set of scientific claims is a logical consequence of another. If organisms violating principles of physics this would be impossible, but that doesn’t happen. Overall it’s argued that organisms do not have a special essence to them, but that there are special features or properties that distinguish organisms.

     This contributes to my research by giving me a different perspective on existence. It questions the idea of if organisms exist/what makes organisms organisms. It’s an interesting viewpoint that I think puts a lot in perspective and will be useful towards my final product.