At the end of the 17th century, a relatively unknown French thinker, René Descartes, wrote: "It was some years ago that I realized how many false opinions I had accepted as true since 'childhood, and that, whatever I had since built on such shaky foundations, could only be highly doubtful' (13). The opening statement of Meditations is apparently bland, since Descartes' statement is in keeping with the beliefs in nonphysical existence shared by other cultural religions, namely Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Descartes attempts to “make sense” of the illusory world through a logical argument. He swears that he will “immediately attack the same principles that form the basis of all my previous beliefs" (17). Meditations is a monumental work. It has changed philosophically. What if the spectator trapped in the watchtower signals another spectator in a nearby tower to let her know of her dilemma? So, there is a possibility that he does not have a ladder, but can signal another spectator in another tower. One spectator after another passes the message until everyone realizes that there is no way out. No one can search deeply enough in their consciousness for the way down, or the construction of the world apart from the leap towards a possible serious harm, or the rejection of the landscape visible from the tower. No, this is not the correct method; I am once again falling into Descartes' "continuous reasoning" dilemma. Should I consider the environment? Imagine that the towers are surrounded by mountains and rivers; whoever is in the valley and receives a signal from her at the top of a mountain can feel that she is already "at sea level". The perspective is complex, he postulates that only the mind creates distinct identities, not God: “But why should I think this, when perhaps I myself could be the source of these thoughts” (18)? But here's another problem: if humans really dominate the center, what living being had dominated the center of the universe before humans? Do early humans or children constitute Descartes' definition of “human being”? Is it at all possible that “truth” is the absence of realization? Descartes writes: “If I conceived the ideas themselves purely and simply as modifications of my thoughts, and did not connect them to anything else, they could hardly give me the opportunity to err”.”