Reality is Just an Illusion That We All Agree On
Summary
TLDRThis thought-provoking script explores the nature of human consciousness and our subjective perception of reality. It delves into the limitations of our understanding, emphasizing that we interpret the world through individual mental filters, and questions whether we can ever truly grasp objective truths. Through concepts like the egocentric predicament and explanatory gap, it challenges the idea of absolute knowledge, urging acceptance of being wrong as a fundamental part of consciousness. Ultimately, it reflects on the paradox of human inquiry, and whether consciousness is a gift or curse.
Takeaways
- 💡 Consciousness emerges from a point of nothingness, and the world we perceive is shaped by our subjective experience.
- 👁️ We don't see the world as it truly is, but rather through the lens of our own consciousness and perception.
- 🔄 Our experience of the world is a continuous feedback loop between consciousness and the natural world, forming our reality.
- 🧠 The 'egocentric predicament' highlights how we can't know if what we perceive is the same as others' experiences.
- 🌈 Perceptions of the world, such as color, may differ between individuals, making objective truth difficult to confirm.
- 🤔 The explanatory gap makes it challenging to fully communicate subjective experiences between people.
- 🔍 Human consciousness is driven by a desire to understand the world, but it may be impossible to reach an ultimate objective truth.
- 📚 Much of what we accept as true is based on collective agreements and shared subjective experiences.
- ⚖️ The desire to be right is strong, but being wrong may be an inevitable part of human existence and learning.
- 🎭 Embracing the possibility of being wrong might lead to a more harmonious life, as constant correctness is likely unattainable.
Q & A
What is the main theme of the script?
-The main theme of the script is the subjective nature of human consciousness and how it shapes our perception of reality, questioning the possibility of ever truly knowing objective truths.
What does the script mean by 'we see the world not as it is, but as we are'?
-This statement suggests that our perception of reality is influenced by our individual consciousness, shaped by personal experiences, biases, and limitations, rather than by an objective view of the world.
What is the 'egocentric predicament' mentioned in the script?
-The 'egocentric predicament' refers to the philosophical problem that humans can never experience reality as it truly is, only as it appears through their subjective consciousness, making it impossible to fully bridge the gap between perception and objective truth.
What is the 'explanatory gap' and how does it relate to consciousness?
-The 'explanatory gap' is the difficulty in explaining how physical processes in the brain give rise to subjective experiences. It highlights the challenge of fully understanding or conveying what consciousness feels like from one person to another.
Why does the script mention colorblindness in relation to truth?
-Colorblindness is used as an analogy to illustrate how different individuals may perceive reality differently. Even if a majority agrees on something (e.g., a color), it doesn't mean that perception is objectively true for everyone, highlighting the limitations of subjective experience.
What is the significance of 'blue pillows' in the script?
-The 'blue pillow' metaphor represents commonly accepted truths that may not be as objective as they seem. It suggests that many things we take for granted as true are based on shared perceptions, which could change if our ways of perceiving the world were different.
How does the script address the quest for objective truth?
-The script questions whether it is possible to ever reach an absolute, objective truth. It suggests that while we can approach truths through shared experiences and tools, our knowledge is ultimately limited by the constraints of human perception.
What is the role of consciousness in shaping our perception of reality?
-Consciousness creates a subjective lens through which we interpret reality. The script argues that our understanding of the world is continually shaped by feedback loops between our mental states and external stimuli, making our experience of reality inherently subjective.
Why does the script suggest that being wrong is inevitable?
-The script proposes that the limitations of human perception and consciousness make it inevitable that we are often wrong about the nature of reality. It encourages acceptance of this uncertainty and the idea that we may never be completely 'right' about anything.
What does the script imply about the human desire for truth and understanding?
-The script implies that humans are driven by an innate desire to understand the world and themselves. However, this desire is in tension with the inherent limitations of human cognition, leading to a perpetual quest for knowledge that may never fully satisfy the need for certainty.
What philosophical stance does the script take on the nature of reality?
-The script leans towards a form of epistemological skepticism, acknowledging that while we can attempt to know reality, our understanding is always filtered through subjective experience, leaving the true nature of reality elusive and potentially unknowable.
Outlines
💡 The Nature of Consciousness and Subjectivity
This paragraph explores the nature of human consciousness, emphasizing the moment when our mental awareness began, though it is beyond memory. It discusses how we construct our subjective worldview, which is shaped by individual consciousness. The paragraph highlights the gap between objective reality and subjective perception, mentioning the inherent limitations of our experience. This creates a persistent loop where consciousness both creates and interprets the world, making it impossible to fully access objective reality. The text references the egocentric predicament and quotes Anaïs Nin to emphasize that we see the world as we are, not as it truly is.
🎨 The Fragility of Perception and Shared Reality
This section delves into the malleability of human perception, using the example of a blue pillow to illustrate how subjective experiences of color can differ, even when we agree on terminology. The paragraph introduces the concept of the explanatory gap, which highlights the difficulty of translating subjective experience between individuals. It questions the certainty of shared perceptions, suggesting that truths are fragile and shaped by collective agreements. The idea that we might all be wrong about something as simple as color is extended to larger concepts such as politics, morality, and metaphysics, prompting reflection on how much of what we consider true is based solely on shared perception.
🔬 The Limits of Human Understanding and Objectivity
This paragraph explores the tension between the pursuit of objective truths and the limitations of human perception. It acknowledges that while tools and scientific methods can bring us closer to understanding physical reality, we are still confined by the boundaries of the human mind. The text suggests that even if we could fully grasp the nature of the physical world, this knowledge might not bring us any closer to understanding its meaning. It raises the question of whether true objective knowledge is attainable or if all understanding is built on a shifting foundation of subjective experience and ideological worldviews.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Consciousness
💡Subjectivity
💡Egocentric predicament
💡Explanatory gap
💡Qualia
💡Objective truth
💡Perception
💡Worldview
💡Illusion
💡Curiosity
Highlights
At some point, the lights turned on for the first time, marking the beginning of consciousness.
Our mental construct of the world began, with consciousness shaping both the creator and the object of our worldview.
We see the world not as it is, but through a unique lens of consciousness, bounded by subjectivity.
Consciousness creates a continual feedback loop between our perception and the natural world.
There is a sheath of subjectivism that prevents us from seeing the world as it truly is.
Anaïs Nin's quote, 'We see the world not as it is, but as we are,' encapsulates the subjectivity of perception.
The egocentric predicament highlights the disconnect between our perception and what is truly outside our minds.
The explanatory gap explains the challenge in translating subjective experiences to others.
Color perception illustrates how people can see the same object differently, leading to different interpretations of reality.
There may be no core objective truth that can be reached by humans, leaving us in a state of perpetual inquiry.
Tools and methods of science help us approach truths but still depend on the subjective human mind.
St. Augustine's quote, 'I err, therefore I am,' speaks to the inevitable mistakes we make in our understanding.
The human condition is built on a paradox: the desire for truth versus the impossibility of attaining it.
We must learn to accept being wrong as an intrinsic part of human consciousness to alleviate inner conflict.
Consciousness is both a gift and a curse, constantly questioning reality while never truly reaching absolute truths.
Transcripts
At some point in all of our timelines, the lights turned on for the very first time.
It isn’t clear exactly when or what it was like, because that first moment of complex consciousness
has long since lapsed our memory. But at some point, everything began to become some form of
everything for the very first time. The world, or rather our mental construct of the world,
began. And in this birth from nothingness into our subjective color of everything, we became
both the creator and object of our worldview. We see the world not as it actually is, but how it
is painted by this unique lens of consciousness. Inexorably bound to it, our view and experience
and understanding of everything is created by our interior experience, created by our consciousness,
created by the natural world, in a reflexive, continual feedback loop. And so, the world as it
actually is exists, at least in some major part, behind a sheath of subjectivism. This is not to
suggest a solipsistic stance that the physical world does not exist outside of consciousness,
but that the particular image of the world we experience–this color–would not. “We see
the world not as it is, but as we are.” Wrote 20th century author, Anaïs Nin.
Ultimately, we are in something that we can seemingly only touch through a body and know
through a conscious mind, forever prohibited from contacting it outside of our personally filtered
experience of it, forever stricken to the methods of perception our brain allows or can create,
forever condemned to the persistent illusions or hallucinations that come as a result. For
good reason, likely this exact reason, one of, if not the primary, distinct quality of our complex
form of consciousness appears to be its ability and desire to inquire about and into itself,
the world, and the relationship between the two. It wants to know what things really are,
how they are, and why they are. It wants to dig and dig and dig, until it hits the inner most core
and knows all there is to know, finally able to understand and control the mechanisms of
existence, toppling or rising above the very substrate force through which it is made,
and freeing itself from the necessity of further inquisition. But what if, in fact,
there is no such core to be reached? Or if there is, but it cannot be reached by us?
Of course, there are plenty of things we can know and be right about in plenty of
different contexts. I can point to a blue pillow and say that the pillow is blue,
and since most of us share eyeballs, optic nerves, occipital lobes, and human brains
that generally function the same when it comes to visual processing, we can agree that I am right.
However, we can’t actually know that what we see is the same blue, because we cannot see into each
others’ minds and know that, although we both agree that we see blue, we are actually seeing
the same mental experience, or qualia, of what we are calling blue. This and all other problems
related to the disconnect between our perception and what is really outside of our mind is known
as the egocentric predicament, which is further extended and made more difficult when considering
what is experienced in other people’s minds by the concept known as the explanatory gap, which is the
challenge in explaining the subjective experience of physical phenomena sufficiently well enough to
translate what the experience is actually like to another person. And so, even here in this simple,
everyday, obvious example, we can’t confirm that anybody is objectively right. Furthermore, someone
who is severely color blind might not agree that the pillow is even any type of blue at all.
To them, if they do agree, they must agree not out of their sense of truth, but a willingness
to sacrifice the truth of what they see for what the majority of the rest of the species sees
and tells them. But fundamentally, are they really wrong if they say the pillow isn’t blue?
What if all humans were color blind? Or, what if the pillow is in fact a much more vibrant color
of some other wavelength that we can’t even imagine, let alone perceive? Wouldn’t we all,
who say it’s blue, then be just as right or wrong as the colorblind individual who says it isn’t?
This is all to say that even though there can be derivative truths derived from sufficiently
shared subjective experiences, about which one can be right (i.e., the pillow is blue),
in the very same sentiment at the very same time, the same someone can be fundamentally wrong.
And if somehow, suddenly, we could all perceive different, higher wavelengths of color,
and we all agreed that the pillow was in fact not blue, then we would all also agree that anyone
who still said it was would be wrong, even though the pillow, in itself, never changed.
How many things in the conceptual atmosphere of political, moral, economic, metaphysical,
and so forth are blue pillows? What are we all color blind to? And what have we all agreed is
true simply and only because we all agree that it’s true? What is underneath all the different
shades of blue, green, red, and all the rest? This is not to say that such agreements of perception
and value judgments aren’t majorly useful and sufficient in many, if not most cases,
but it is to point out the off-putting fragility, or at the very least, malleability
and abstractness of all of what we think is true. There are, of course, ways of measuring and
getting closer to apparent fundamental truths of physical reality through tools, theories,
and methods that supersede any sort of perceptual illusions, biases, and so forth, but also of
course, all tools must start and end through the first and final tool and method of the human mind.
There is no way out of the mind, and thus, there is no way into the world as it actually
is. And moreover, it would seem that if we could understand and explain what and how
all the physical stuff of the material world is, we still wouldn’t necessarily be any better off
knowing what it ought to mean. And so, if all human truths are based on agreements of shared
subjective, internal experience, which are all limited inexorably by human perception, then
we can likely never know if there even is a core of objective truth to be reached, or at the very
least, if we conclusively ever reach it, if there is. And if this is the case, then would we not,
in every effort towards such a goal of fundamental axiomatic conclusions of reality and truth,
be endeavoring the impossible? And consequently, is not attempting to think and talk in generally
true, objective terms, also impossible? Not useless, but impossible in the absolute sense.
If we cannot arrive at any grand, fundamental, objective truths to life,
but we must build all conclusions, ideas, and discourse on top of some sort of foundation,
this places discussion, thinking, and believing on a constantly shifting,
unstable, and wide spanning ground of various types of subjective, ideological worldviews.
And this absurdity at the core of all worldviews likely then spiderwebs into the attempt to discuss
and think about even relatively commonplace ideas built on or within such a system of thinking.
This phenomenon potentially reveals itself when we confront another person who is so obviously wrong
but has no idea how they could possibly be so, while at the same time, is equally certain that we
are in fact so obviously wrong even though we have no idea how we could possibly be so. Or perhaps
when we confront a sudden breaking down of what we were so majorly sure about for so long, realizing
that everything we believe, individually or collectively, is in fact entirely opposite to what
is now apparently true. This is learning if it ends, but some kind of madness if it never does.
Of course, it is obligatory to mention that all of the aforementioned ideas could themselves
be wrong. They might entirely oppose what you believe or feel you know to be true.
But, ironically, if anything, that would seem to potentially support the main point here.
In either case, for the most part, knowing what the real color of things are, metaphorically
speaking, is perhaps minimally relevant to living and thriving as an individual and collective
species. Perhaps what matters is that we can agree on subjective things sufficiently well enough and
cordially enough often enough. And also, somewhat ironically, it seems as though in order to do so,
if such a feat is possible, the perquisite is a willingness and embracing of often being wrong.
Naturally and culturally, the desire to be right is a deeply enduring and forceful one.
As often as possible, sometimes at all costs, and often times in spite of good reason,
we are both compelled by our psyche and pressured by our social circumstances to always be right.
And when we aren’t, it hurts. So much so that it can often create horrible sensations in the brain
akin that of real physical pain. And so, we of course try to avoid it, or at least admitting it,
at all costs. And yet, it is impossible to avoid. And furthermore, it is possibly the
case that fundamentally, we are never actually right at all. In the words of St. Augustine,
“I err, therefore I am.” As a consciousness, in the form that we are born into, we are all
put up against the imperative of our mind to desire absolute truth, while simultaneously,
the seeming imperative of the natural world that prohibits us from obtaining it.
We will all cling to reasons and answers and worldviews just to have them smashed to pieces
time and time again, whether we know it or admit it to ourselves or not. We will all
likely not only be wrong often, but right rarely, even in the meta, subjective sense.
And so, perhaps we can and must learn how to be ok with this if we wish to be ok with consciousness.
Perhaps we must learn how to fundamentally be ok with being wrong, or we will loath ourselves
until the end. Perhaps we must love and accept the hypocrisy that runs through the very veins of the
human condition, or we will hate all of humankind. Perhaps we must learn how to dial back our
expectations and the degree in which we dread over the inevitable failure of everything we believe,
and the beliefs of others just the same. This is not to make light of the immense challenge
of such an arduous endeavor. It is an endless, upward climb of surpassing one’s default mode
and understanding of the world. But perhaps if we can, at least some of the time, succeed in
doing so, we can feel a little less embarrassed, disgusted, miserable, ashamed, bitter, angry,
and all the rest, and perhaps we can be a little less wrong a little more often.
This apparent impossibility of successfully thinking paired with the inability to ever
not be thinking, seems to beg the question: is consciousness a gift or a curse? Or perhaps some
combination of both? Perhaps the answer depends on whether or not all of this, the ability to be
curious about and discuss things like the possible impossibility of ever truly being right is worth
possibly never being right about anything. And perhaps such a truth can only be answered by you.
“It is enough for me to contemplate the mystery of conscious life
perpetuating itself through all eternity, to reflect upon the marvelous structure of
the universe which we dimly perceive, and to try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part
of the intelligence manifested in nature.” – Albert Einstein.
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)