Cognition, Belief and the Objective World

The Fabric of Reality

At its core, the pursuit of knowledge revolves around a single, profound question: how can we discern truth from what is not? Truth is objectivity, the network of ideas and abstractions independent of subjective interpretation. Observers—human and animal alike—perceive only fragments of reality, minute segments that invariably fail to capture the vastness of the universe.

Perception itself appears dual in nature: one aspect shaped by sensory experience of the physical world, the other emerging from the inner realm of thoughts, feelings, and ideas. Yet this perceived duality can be misleading, for sensory perception is not always reliable. Visual and auditory illusions demonstrate that even normal perception can be deceived. Moreover, the brain may distort sensory input, producing delusions and hallucinations that disconnect the self from reality—a phenomenon known as psychosis, common in several mental illnesses, particularly schizophrenia.

It follows that there is no duality within consciousness, and all distinctions between inner and outer reality are constructs of perception, emerging from the brain’s attempt to interpret a singular, unified flow of existence.

The true challenge, then, lies in discerning reality as it is from reality as it is represented in the mind—a task guided by logic, which gives rise to reason and forms the foundation of the quintessential tool for bridging the gap between objective reality and subjective experience: the scientific method. Through it, we uncover the underlying patterns of reality, patterns that exist independently of time or individual interpretation.

The Language of Thought

Individuals access ideas through interactions with the environment, while words derive their meaning from the contexts in which they were previously used. As experience is unique to each individual, meaning varies.

When a person refers to chairs or tables, they are referring to a compilation of all the information derived from the contexts of their previous encounters with these objects. Most words convey simple ideas, the contexts are easy to grasp, and meaning is relatively stable. However, with complex concepts such as good and evil, individual experiences vary substantially, making the meaning quite unstable.

An example of an objective statement might be: “Near the surface of the Earth, objects fall when dropped.” If one understands language, this idea is easy to communicate, as all the words used are very stable.

In contrast, a question like “What is success?” is unstable because its meaning depends heavily on each person’s unique experiences, values, and interpretations, so there is no single, universally agreed-upon definition.

This, however, does not mean the question is useless; the key is to stabilize complex concepts by clearly defining them. For example, when discussing success, we can specify whether we mean financial success, career achievement, or personal fulfillment. By doing so, conversations become clearer and more meaningful.

The Architecture of Belief

Why do certain words have such unstable meanings in the first place? If we look closer, we notice the common traits among words with high instability—words like good, evil, beauty, honor and duty. All of these concepts are deeply connected to emotions and personal convictions.

Before we act or decide, the brain quietly judges ideas as useful or useless. This fast, intuitive process—shaped by survival and reproductive considerations—forms the basis of our beliefs, subtly guiding emotional responses and behavior.

At the same time, emotions—emerging from complex neural activity—respond to internal and external stimuli, shaping perception and gradually reshaping our beliefs, creating a continuous, paradoxical loop at the very core of human experience.

In the end, knowledge is a careful navigation between the objective world and the subjective mind—an attempt to impose order on chaos. Individuals tend to form opinions in inherently chaotic domains, where an overabundance of indeterminate possibilities often leads to unfalsifiable statements.

While perception, language, and belief introduce instability, the rigorous application of logic, precise definitions, and repeated observation allows humanity to approximate truth.

The Edge of Reason

Imagine a window shattered on the ground. Why is the window broken? Because a ball hit it. Why did the ball hit the window? Because a child threw it. Why did the child throw it? Because he was playing. Each answer points to a prior cause, and each cause invites a further “why.”

The first cause argument begins by generalizing this pattern. Everything we encounter in the world seems to exist or occur because of something else. A thought arises because neurons fire; neurons fire because they are electrically active; and so on.

Since every cause depends on a prior cause, the chain appears to stretch endlessly into oblivion. However, this sequence cannot regress infinitely, because an infinite chain would mean that there is no first cause, an ultimate explanation for why anything exists or happens at all.

The first cause is often equated with ‘God,’ but the existence of a first cause may also be explained simply by the existence of reality itself. Reality exists; therefore, there must be a first cause.

Why does reality exist?

Perhaps it stems from divinity, perhaps from the Big Bang, or perhaps we are just a brain in a vat—but fundamentally, the simple truth is that we do not know. The question of why reality exists may lie forever beyond human comprehension, a boundary at the edge of understanding where cause and reason themselves lose meaning.

References:

1. Plato. Republic.— Theory of Forms; distinction between appearance and objective reality.

2. Kant, I. (1781). Critique of Pure Reason.— Phenomena vs. noumena; limits of human perception and cognition.

3. Descartes, R. (1641). Meditations on First Philosophy.— Methodological skepticism; unreliability of sensory perception.

4. Hume, D. (1739). A Treatise of Human Nature.— Empiricism; perception as fragmentary; emotion as the basis of belief and action.

5. Spinoza, B. (1677). Ethics.— Monism; rejection of mind–body dualism; unified substance.

6. Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind.— Critique of Cartesian dualism; mental states as conceptual constructs.

7. Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery.— Falsifiability; approximation of truth through error elimination.

8. Bacon, F. (1620). Novum Organum.— Scientific method; overcoming cognitive distortions (“idols”).

9. Russell, B. (1918). The Philosophy of Logical Atomism.— Logic and precise language as tools for clarifying thought.

10. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations.— Meaning as use; context-dependent language; instability of abstract concepts.

11. Saussure, F. de. (1916). Course in General Linguistics.— Meaning as relational; absence of intrinsic semantic essence.

12. Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object.— Indeterminacy of meaning; instability of reference.

13. Nietzsche, F. (1887). On the Genealogy of Morals.— Moral concepts rooted in biological, psychological, and social forces.

14. Damasio, A. (1994). Descartes’ Error.— Emotion as fundamental to reasoning and belief formation.

15. Metzinger, T. (2003). Being No One.— The self and inner–outer distinction as representational constructs.

16. Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness Explained.— Naturalistic account of consciousness; rejection of intrinsic mental essences.

17. Aristotle. (c. 350 BCE). Metaphysics, Book XII (Lambda). — Concept of the “Unmoved Mover” as first cause; ultimate explanation for motion and existence.

18. Aquinas, T. (1265–1274). Summa Theologica, Part I, Question 2, Article 3. — First Cause argument; necessity of an initial cause to prevent infinite regress.

19. Leibniz, G. W. (1714). The Principles of Nature and Grace. — The question of why there is something rather than nothing; existence as fundamental.

20. Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, Truth, and History. — “Brain in a vat” thought experiment; skepticism about perception and reality.

21. Hawking, S., & Mlodinow, L. (2010). The Grand Design. — Cosmological perspective; Big Bang and the question of why the universe exists.