Visions, Theories, and Truth
“We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world" - Robert Pirsig
Introduction
We suffer in part because we are ignorant. Given that we can only know so much, we are bound to fall into pits and run into obstacles trying to make our way in the world. Obtaining knowledge about how reality works can enable us to avoid the pitfalls or at least minimize the damage done. However, we must overcome some obstacles to enlightenment.
One problem we face is the fact that there is too much information in the world for us to comprehend. We can only pay attention to so many phenomena, remember so many data points, and analyze so many factors over a given time period. Part of the way we solve this problem is that we only see, think about, remember, and act on things that are significant to us (1)(2)(3). Most of what we consciously interact with is filtered first by our unconscious (4), and we can think of this filter as a vision. This happens even if the conscious you does not think the thing you are interacting with is important. Your biological nervous system and the implicit parts of your psyche generate signals of value, keeping what is "irrelevant" from utilizing the vital energy required to voluntarily contend with something. However, is it possible for our filter to be wrong?
This brings up a second problem, and that is trying to ascertain the truth. Given that there is both bottom up and top down processing in our mind, brain, and body (5), we have the power to overrule the signals sent from our deeper, evolutionarily older, and more widely distributed parts. But what exactly does it mean for something to be true? Can something be true and false at the same time? Can different people look at the seemingly same situation and come away with equally valid or true conclusions? Even after we manage to solve the problem of near-infinite complexity, we still must wrestle with understanding which significant facts to take seriously and utilize as the basis for strategizing and implementing behaviors.
Part of the way we solve this second but perhaps more fundamental problem is by defining truth to the best of our abilities and by using different methodologies to converge on the validity of the signal. These ways of knowing, or epistemologies, help us generate theories which I will speak about momentarily. The purpose of this essay is to explore the nature of visions, theories, the truth, and their interrelations.
Visions
Robert Pirsig, an American philosopher, wrote in Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, “We take a handful of sand from the endless landscape of awareness around us and call that handful of sand the world" (6). As previously mentioned, there is a near-infinite number of facts surrounding us at all times. Something as simple as a drinking glass can be construed as one object, but does that make our conception of it as a unity an objective fact? Given a normal context, it is something used for drinking. Under another context, it may be a weapon. Under another, it may be a paper weight. If we descend a few levels of analysis, we could say that it is a constellation of atoms. If we ascend, we could say that it is a part of the furniture in a room. Each interpretation of the cup is a fact, along with all of its objective properties.
Instead of constantly being bombarded with complex information, we filter out what is irrelevant and only attend to what we need to accomplish a given task. This filter has many names; a belief system, a map, a worldview, a narrative. For this discussion, we will call the filter a vision. Thomas Sowell, an eminent American economist and author, wrote in A Conflict of Visions, “Visions set the agenda for both thought and action" (7). From the same text, “Visions are only the raw material from which theories are constructed and specific hypotheses deduced” (8). A vision is a set of axiomatic presuppositions through which we see the world. These primary assumptions are so fundamental to our way of being that they often go unnoticed. They are assertions that we do not question for several reasons.
First, there frequently is not an obvious correct answer to the question that the assumption provides an answer to. Second, the assumption may be proven correct either through the experience of the individual or through the collective experience of generations, communicated to contemporaries via tradition. We do not tend to question something that has already been "answered". Third, these assumptions are fundamental in that many other assumptions are based on them. Imagine a couple that has been married for thirty years. A basic assumption in that relationship is that each person loves the other. Each person bases their conception of the past, present, and future on this assumption. Now, imagine that the husband finds out that his wife has been having a series of affairs for the past decade. The axiom of love has been proven incorrect, and all of the other assumptions, perhaps those varying from his belief in being a good husband to his future plans of sharing in the joy of grandkids with his wife, which are dependent on that axiom are now shaken at best and shattered at worst.
People do not like to have their visions questioned or altered, but as we will investigate soon, adhering to an invalid vision can have devastating consequences.
Theories
A theory is a description of cause and effect relationships. They are predicated on a person's vision. Sowell writes, “Whether in science or in social thought, visions or inspirations come first, and are subsequently systematized into paradigms, which embrace specific theories, and their narrowly focused hypotheses, which can be tested against evidence” (9). An individual's vision may consist of the assumption that humans are inherently good. As this individual witnesses the effects of crime, their search for the cause will lead to a theory involving factors that are outside of the power of the criminal, such as socio-economic conditions or upbringing. A different individual who starts with the opposing assumption needs no explanation for crime as the greed, corruption, and immaturity of man is self-evident.
Theories can be judged on their validity, falsifiability, generalizability, and conciseness. Validity is logical coherence, both within the theory and between the propositions of the theory and empirical facts. Falsifiability deals with a theory's capacity for prediction and the testing of its predictions. If a theory claims to predict something that cannot be tested, or it claims to predict both opposing effects when there are only two, the theory is inadequate. Generalizability refers to the theory's capacity to maintain itself across contexts. All theories require initial assumptions, and conciseness refers to a theory's ability to explain the most number of phenomena with the least number of assumptions.
Theories are typically explicit in nature and require articulation. It should be noted that they are only one form of epistemology, one way of knowing and exploring knowledge. Iain McGilchrist, a British psychiatrist, has written that there are at least four ways of knowing and that it would behoove us to become familiar with and utilize all of them (10) . They are science, reason, intuition, and imagination. Theories may be housed primarily under the first and second epistemologies, depending on the accepted definitions. Given that there are different, independent ways of knowing the world, some explicit and implicit, we can use this to our advantage. If multiple epistemologies come to the same conclusion, then we can increase the probability that the conclusion we have drawn is true.
Truth
Sowell wrote, “Facts do no ‘speak for themselves.’ They speak for or against competing theories. Facts divorced from theory or visions are mere isolated curiosities” (11). Phenomena occur in the world, but it is not obvious exactly what those phenomena are, less so what they mean. What does it mean that someone loves you? What does it mean for a piece of art to be beautiful? What does it mean for something to be catastrophic? Even the meaning of scientific facts shift as theories change. For example, in the nineteenth century it was believed that human mental faculties, such as humor, will, and charisma, could be localized to specific areas of the brain. As these ideas were debated, technology advanced, and thus new facts acquired, the relationship between functions and localization changed from narrow conceptions to broader ones with more explanatory power (12).
What we are trying to do is to discover facts that disprove our theories, thus leaving us only with the best theories that can account for the most number of facts with the fewest number of assumptions. As we sort through our theories with the given facts, we can then hope that we can reach the level of adjusting our visions as well. This process can then be applied in the other direction, using our refined visions to generate theories built on more stable foundations which can be used to make predictions and create policies. We are aiming to use this dynamic, reciprocal process between visions, theories, and facts to build a model of reality that is true.
This model involves both the external reality and the internal reality of the subjective organism. The best vision-theory sets are predicated on the experience that manifests between the objective properties "out there" and the subjective properties "inside consciousness." “Every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system" (13). This correspondence between the objective and the subjective is a working definition of truth. It describes truth as the throughline of reality which flows through chaos, inorganic matter, biology, society, and the intellect (14). It attempts to set the standard by which visions and theories should be judged.
Conclusion
One of the reasons we suffer is because we are ignorant. To overcome our ignorance, we must shield ourselves from the overwhelming complexity of reality and discern what is true from the narrow perspective that remains. Our visions simplify the world while our theories allow us to grapple with experience. If we navigate properly, we can rely on truth, defined as the alignment between consciousness and reality, or being and becoming, to correct our axioms and descriptions of cause and effect relationships. If we allow ourselves to first understand that we are only engaging with a map and not the territory, and if we open ourselves up to learning, then we may be able to build a model of the world that enables us to get a grip on it and avoid falling into a pit.
References
Luria, A. (1973). The Working Brain. Basic Books.
2. Findlay, J. M. & Gilchrist, I. D. (2003). Active Vision: The Psychology of Looking and Seeing. Oxford University Press.
3. Schacter, D. L. (1996). Searching for Memory: The Brain, The Mind, and The Past. Basic Books.
4. Norretranders, T. (1999). The User Illusion: Cutting Consciousness Down to Size. Penguin Books.
5. Kurzweil, R. (2012). How to Create a Mind. Viking.
6. Pirsig, R. M. (1974). Zen and The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. HarperCollins Publishers.
7. Sowell, T. (2007). A Conflict of Visions. Basic Books.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. McGilchrist, I. (2021). The Matter With Things. Perspectiva Press, London.
11. Sowell, T. (2007). A Conflict of Visions. Basic Books.
12. Alexander, L. (1980). Higher Cortical Functions in Man. Basic Books.
13. Parr, T., & Pezzulo, G., & Friston, K. J. (2022). Active Inference. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
14. Pirsig, R. (1991). Lila. Bantam Books.