DIRECT EXPERIENCE
Contents:
Direct experience is the irreducible experience of reality (irreducible in terms of conscious units). In this document, I shall first discuss experience in general. Then, I shall delve into the direct experience of external stimuli (sense-perception), the automatic retention and integration of sensations (perception). Lastly, I shall delve into the direct experience of mental states.
MAIN REFERENCE: Objectivism on the Validity of the Senses by Leonard Peikoff, part 48 of 50
First, a definition…
Experience:
It is a discrete awareness, i.e. a discrete, retained interaction between the environment and a consciousness. Note that “to experience” as a verb means the same as “to be aware of”, whereas “experience” as a noun refers to a discrete part of awareness rather than the fact of awareness as such. I am using “experience” instead of “perception” because later, I have used the term “perception” for a more specific purpose with a more specific meaning.
Back to the discussion…
Consciousness experiences reality; this is a corollary of the axiom of consciousness itself. How? Answer: an experience is ultimately an experience of reality. If it were not so, then an experience would be an experience of the unreal, the non-existent, i.e. nothing. But an experience of nothing is non-experience, and by the law of non-contradiction, experience cannot be non-experience. Thus, we experience some part of reality and nothing else. Thus, to say that experience is invalid is to say it is not the experience of reality, and hence, it is non-experience, non-awareness, a result of unconsciousness. Hence, if experience is invalid as such, then there can be no consciousness, which is false since the fact of consciousness is axiomatic. Therefore, to be conscious is to experience reality, i.e. to be aware of reality.
NOTE 1: We do not say “reality as it really is” as it is a redundancy; there is no such thing as “reality as it really is not”.
NOTE 2: Even to have illusions or delusions, we must first grasp reality on some level. This point is further reinforced in the following section.
Fundamentally, we do not experience experiences. We can do so (e.g. we can be aware of awareness or relive memories of past experiences), provided we have experienced reality first. To experience an experience is, in essence, to be aware of awareness, which begs the question: awareness of what? Note that an infinite regress (i.e. awareness of awareness of awareness to infinity) amounts to nothing, since there is no starting point for something that must have one. Thus, even to experience an experience presupposes the experience of that whose source is outside experience to begin with, i.e. whose source is reality outside consciousness.
We experience reality by means of its effects on our consciousness, and — due to the law of causality — such effects are of things in reality, and thus, are non-contradictory extensions (and thus experiences) of the identities of things in reality. It is invalid to say that we only experience the effects of reality on our consciousness and not reality as such. Why is it invalid? Because the effects are the means of experience, not the object of experience. Consider: what is an effect of reality on consciousness? It is, in fact, experience. But, as we saw before, experience cannot be only experience of experience, since at some point, experience presupposes an object whose source is outside experience to begin with. Hence, the second statement is invalid conceptually (i.e. it uses the concept of “experience” while denying its source, the source being direct interaction between consciousness and the reality outside it).
Experience does not “represent” reality, i.e. it does not (at its core) recreate objects in reality within the consciousness. Experience, rather, is ultimately directly of reality, a part of reality as retained by the consciousness.
NOTE: The above clarifications about the nature of experience are vital in clarifying the basic nature of the relationship between consciousness and reality as a whole. Ignoring these clarifications makes it easier to form false, non-objective and impractical views about knowledge-formation (e.g. see the views of Kant, Hume and Descartes, each of whom reaches a different false conclusion on the nature of knowledge).
Being irreducible data provided to our consciousness, the fact that sense-perception is valid (which we shall justify shortly) is the basis of the validity of knowledge. Note that we have not yet validated the higher forms of knowledge, namely concepts, generalisations, principles, etc. However, the validity of the senses is the first step in knowing that consciousness can know reality as it is, not subjectively but objectively.
First, a definition…
Sense-perception:
The irreducible form of direct experience (irreducible in terms of other experiences or conscious units) drawn from the senses. A sense is a point of direct contact between reality and consciousness (direct contact means contact unmediated by one’s consciousness; such a contact has to exist because consciousness has a starting point).
Back to the discussion…
The senses are non-conscious windows to the environment; they input certain, specific types of information in certain, specific ways, e.g. tactile, auditory, visual, etc. Our minds can be misled, but our senses are merely what provide the inputs derived from some part of reality; it is the task of our minds to interpret these inputs according to reality.
“The task of man’s senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.” (Excerpt from “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff, Chapter 2: “Sense Perception and Volition”)
“A so-called sensory illusion, such as a stick in water appearing bent, is not a perceptual error. It is a testament to the reliability of the senses. The senses do not censor their response; they do not react to a single attribute (such as shape) in a vacuum, as though it were unconnected to anything else; they cannot decide to ignore part of the stimulus. Within the range of their capacity, the senses give us evidence of everything physically operative, they respond to the full context of the facts—including, in the present instance, the fact that light travels through water at a different rate than through air, which is what causes the stick to appear bent.” (Excerpt from “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff, Chapter 2: “Sense Perception and Volition”)
To summarise…
We have the means to integrate the inputs provided by our senses and use our minds to grasp the nature of the inputs. Our senses provide at least some information, and the material provided by them is the starting point of any knowledge. Sensory data is given, but the right interpretation of this data is not and must be pursued volitionally, through conceptual thinking.
Note that the concept of “sense” refers to any means of a consciousness of acquiring inputs from some part of reality. These inputs are acquired by the interaction between some part of reality and the entities that serve as the senses. Humans possess five in-built senses, but since entities can interact with reality in many other ways than our senses do, there are many more ways to sense reality. In short, senses are physical instruments that react to external stimuli in fixed ways; it is up to our minds to identify the part of reality from which the stimuli are derived.
Note that we can extend the range of our senses by observing the direct or indirect effects derived from our object of study on something that we can observe. For examples: (1) Chemicals can be detected by their reaction with other known chemicals. For instance, invisible oxygen gas may be detected by visible oxidation of metals. (2) A microscope uses lens to refract light in a way that enables us to detect the miniscule quantity of light reflected from miniscule things. (3) Radio waves are detected using the oscillating currents produced in the receiving antenna struck by the radio waves. These currents are in turn detected by the receiver that converts it into a form of information we can directly observe.
What about “extrasensory” entities? Let us say an entity X is extrasensory, i.e. it cannot be detected with any kind of senses whatsoever. Hence, it does not interact with any entity that we can interact with. If we do learn about it, then this notion is contradicted and X would not be, in fact, extrasensory. If we do not learn about it, then what are we referring to? Hence, to make any claims about such an entity is to make claims about nothing, in essence. Furthermore, if an entity is truly extrasensory, then it does not and cannot interact with any entities we can interact with, which means it is absolutely irrelevant to us both practically and cognitively.
First, a definition…
Perception:
A form of direct experience that is the result of the automatically integrated material of sense-perception. How is such integration done and is it valid? We shall discuss this now…
Back to the discussion…
Sensation as such cannot be the starting point of knowledge, since knowledge requires that data be retained in a way that adheres to reality. The essence of a perception is that it is a set of sensations retained in a particular order, based on the spatial and temporal positions of the sensations with respect to each other, i.e. based on where and when the sensations were experienced with respect to each other. In other words, in a perception, we retain not only the sensations but also the order in which these sensations were experienced. Hence, a perception is a set of sensations retained as a distinct, integrated sum. This process of integration is automatic; it is automatic retention of automatic responses in an automatic order, i.e. in an order set by the way in which reality interacts with the senses.
“The first stage of consciousness is that of sensation. A “sensation” is an irreducible state of awareness produced by the action of a stimulus on a sense organ. “Irreducible” here means: incapable of being analysed into simpler conscious units. By its nature, a sensation lasts only as long as the stimulus.” (Excerpt from “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff, Chapter 2: “Sense Perception and Volition”)
““A perception”, in Ayn Rand’s definition, “is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of a single stimuli, but of entities, of things.” The important philosophic point of this discussion can be stated simply: “direct experience”, according to Objectivism, means the perceptual level of consciousness.” (Excerpt from “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” by Leonard Peikoff, Chapter 2: “Sense Perception and Volition”)
KEY POINT: Any set of retained sensations necessarily forms perception, since sensations are necessarily retained in some order (spatial and temporal).
The mind is a part of reality that acts or reacts in a certain way and thereby produces certain effects. Consciousness is an aspect of the mind, is integrated to the rest of the mind and is thereby affected by the events that occur in the mind. A consciousness being affected by the such events is another way of saying that it can experience mental states through some means. Any experience presupposes direct experience, i.e. experience irreducible to other conscious units. Thus, there exist irreducible conscious units that are essentially data regarding one’s mental state.
We can identify such conscious units by observing those aspects of our conscious processes that do not reduce to sense-perception. Emotions, instincts and motives are examples of such conscious units. Note that irreducible in this context refers to that which is epistemologically fundamental (i.e. the starting point of experience) rather than metaphysically fundamental (i.e. the cause in existence that results in what we experience). Hence, just as we do use our sense-perception to explore the causes behind what we perceive, we can use our direct experience of our mental states to explore the causes behind what we feel.
Importantly, data about mental states is as objective as data from any external stimulus, because it is derived from a part of reality that acts in certain way and is perceived in a certain way. Hence, do not make the mistake of assuming that one’s mental state is subjective or illusory. What our feelings may refer to may be subjective (e.g. a feeling of threat) but their existence as such is clearly objective, i.e. a fact of reality (i.e. we do in fact feel something in particular for some particular reason or reasons).