Reality is Just an Illusion That We All Agree On

Summary

This 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

00:00

💡 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.

05:03

🎨 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.

10:07

🔬 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.

Keywords

💡Consciousness

Consciousness refers to the complex awareness that allows us to perceive and interpret the world. In the script, it is described as the lens through which we view reality, making us both the creators and subjects of our worldview. It also raises questions about the limitations of our perception, suggesting that we are trapped within our subjective experience of the world.

💡Subjectivity

Subjectivity is the notion that our understanding of the world is filtered through our individual consciousness. In the script, this concept is central to how we perceive reality, as the speaker suggests that 'we see the world not as it is, but as we are.' Our experiences, thoughts, and perceptions are all shaped by our subjective lenses, creating different interpretations of the same reality.

💡Egocentric predicament

The egocentric predicament is the philosophical problem of not being able to verify whether our perceptions truly reflect reality. The script highlights this by discussing how we cannot know if others see colors the same way we do, or if what we call 'blue' is the same for everyone. This concept emphasizes the disconnect between our subjective experiences and objective reality.

💡Explanatory gap

The explanatory gap refers to the difficulty in explaining how subjective experiences arise from physical processes. The script uses this concept to illustrate how it is impossible to fully convey what something like 'blue' looks like to another person. This gap between physical phenomena and subjective experiences is a fundamental challenge in understanding consciousness.

💡Qualia

Qualia are the individual instances of subjective, conscious experience, such as the sensation of seeing a color or feeling pain. The script references qualia when discussing the uniqueness of our perceptions, like seeing the color blue, and how it is impossible to confirm whether others experience the same sensations.

💡Objective truth

Objective truth refers to facts that are true independent of individual perceptions or beliefs. The script explores the idea that, due to the limitations of human perception, we may never fully access objective truths, as our experiences are filtered through subjective consciousness. It questions whether such truths even exist or can be reached.

💡Perception

Perception is the process by which we interpret sensory information to form an understanding of the world. The script delves into how perception is subjective and shaped by individual consciousness, raising doubts about whether our interpretations truly reflect reality. It suggests that our perceptions are inherently limited and influenced by mental filters.

💡Worldview

A worldview is the comprehensive perspective through which an individual or society interprets and interacts with the world. The script emphasizes that each person's worldview is shaped by their subjective consciousness, meaning we create our own mental constructs of reality. It suggests that our worldview is inherently limited and often flawed.

💡Illusion

An illusion is a misleading perception or interpretation of reality. In the script, human consciousness is described as 'forever condemned to the persistent illusions' of perception. This suggests that what we perceive as reality is often a distortion created by our mind, making it difficult to grasp the true nature of the world.

💡Curiosity

Curiosity is the desire to understand the world and one's place in it. The script portrays human consciousness as being driven by an insatiable curiosity to uncover fundamental truths about existence, even if those truths may ultimately be unreachable. This desire to inquire into the nature of reality and oneself is presented as a defining characteristic of human consciousness.

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.