I said to myself, “These are the words I should be writing.” and I turned to type just now…

I would have liked to have been more careful in my life as to not say anything in such a way that it comes off as far-fetched enough from the fringe of ideas that it invalidates to others my very valid and more credible opinions and collections of a posteriori facts. Unfortunately, I cannot contain myself at times and have felt the need to announce more thoughts than I probably should have, many of them unfinished and expectedly weak at the time. This though, however, is one of the more well-considered of the lot.

We must first admit that there are some incorporeal notions quite easily identifiable, such as love, fear and taste. Taste being a rather interesting one, for if we objectively examine any edible item which we identify as having particular taste, such as chocolate, we find some curious questions. A first question is “What does chocolate taste like?” or “How does chocolate taste?” A few quick notes to make include that there is more than one way to prepare chocolate, and its taste depends greatly on this. The next note to make, a more poignant one, starts to lead us down the road towards a discussion regarding verbally constructed reality, language and the symbolic mind. We will approach these subjects later, but do stir them around in your brain a bit. That more poignant note is “How can we describe the taste of chocolate in terms other than simply comparing it to something else?” To say “It tastes like chocolate.” is circular and points us to Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem, which states: “For any consistent formal, recursively enumerable theory that proves basic arithmetical truths, an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory, can be constructed. That is, any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete.” To say “Chocolate is sweet.” or “Chocolate is bitter” is to only describe it, again, in terms of comparison to the qualities of other things. To borrow from Melville here (again, as I know I’ve quoted this line at least a few times previously, don’t worry, I haven’t developed a case of can’t teach an old dog new tricks syndrome):

“… truly to enjoy bodily warmth, some small part of you must be cold, for there is no quality in this world that is not what it is merely by contrast. Nothing exists in itself. If you flatter yourself that you are all over comfortable, and have been so a long time, then you cannot be said to be comfortable any more.”

That is to say, we are caught in an infinite regress when trying to provide actual truth to an idea such as taste. We could identify all of the parts that make up our chocolate, determine that it most likely originated from the bean of a cacao tree, determine its mass, pigment, chemical composition, identify its alkaloids, study the microbial fermentation and its final metabolizing and then monitor and construct logarithmic graphs of each and every chemical, neurological, physiological, psychological and sociological effect it has had on a large control group of human beings. We would do this all in the name of science and truth and come to know everything that there is to know about chocolate. After all of this, one fact about the chocolate would remain curiously missing, and it is the most important fact! What does chocolate taste like? There is no property for taste on the periodic table of the elements. To different tongues the chocolate tastes different, has a different effect and is interpreted differently, either positively, negatively or sometimes neutrally. This is much like the rest of the universe. The taste of the chocolate does not exist objectively, only the energy compromising the chocolate exists. The taste is left to the person who experiences it, which we will call the observer from this point on. I would like to give a nudge here towards a later conversation about artificial intelligence with mentioning that taste is sort of an emergent essence of the system comprising it. Anyway, back to our observer.

To the observer, his or her (or who knows what!) ontological truth is that they exist materially. By materially, I mean physically, of hard matter and “stuff”. I state this definition because the word “material” or “materialistic” has taken on the definition of “superficial” in recent years. They, as adults human beings, believe this physical world to be the only real existence available to human perception in this lifetime. They believe this for two reasons. First being that they have constructed their epistemological base from their subjective experience through the five basic senses and hardened this into a truth they call fact. Second is because they have been told so. Social conditioning plays the largest part in hindering our mind’s ability to determine and compile a complete picture of reality. We learn what things are and what things are called by means of communication from others. As a human mind is developing it takes its cues on how to interpret the waves of energy in the universe from other seemingly sentient beings. In this predicament the mind is never free to, ironically and profoundly, “make up its own mind”.

The physical brain and its 100 billion or so neurons take in signals from various parts of the body and compile a picture of reality a few hundred times per second. If you place a radio and a flashlight on a desk that is 10 feet away from you and turn them both on facing you, as the light and sound waves come towards you they travel at different speeds. The light signal is arriving much faster than the sound signal. So when you are observing what you assume to be coinciding events, they are, in fact, happening at different times even though in the reality that the mind constructs they seem to be happening at the same time. The eyes take the most recent light wave and the ears take the most recent sound wave and transmit them to the brain simultaneously. The brain converts the most recent visual signal into what you now see and the most recent sound signal into what you now hear, combines them with your other senses, and presents them all to you at once. Of course, the most recent sound signal that has reached you left much earlier than the most recent light signal that has reached you, so two non-parallel chronological events are being displayed to you as a simultaneous occurrence, when they are in fact not. The brain compiles hundreds of these pictures of reality per second and presents them to you as if they are happening right now, at the same time. This is the reality that you are now experiencing. The reality that you are experiencing this very moment has already happened. It has been compiled and presented to you for observation by the brain, so has the next, and the next, and so on. There is a touch of destiny to this. (Instead of watching the compilation, watch the compiler, and then… learn to watch the watcher) This constant compiling is why we can see anything happen. It is why we can notice the change in a a single frame of movie or a video game as it happens at 30 – 60 frames per second. Two important things are happening here. First is that each time the full-picture and experience of reality is compiled, all other data received since the last compile, milliseconds earlier is ignored. Between each compilation of reality in the brain, much more data comes through, as light and sounds are traveling extremely fast, but the brain only compiles at certain intervals so it can only process some of the data, not all of it. This is not to mention all of the types of energies we cannot detect naturally (sonar, infrared, uv, magnetism, gravity, etc) and which are only able to be augmented into our picture of reality through displays and data with the current state of industrialized technology. This fact alone lets us know that we do not have a complete picture of reality as human beings. Second, as the data is coming in, the mind takes the raw data provided by the waves and builds it into something identifiable. In a quantum system, when an observer (in this case, a mind) is introduced to the system, the system behaves differently. While seemingly deterministic, our reality is quite probabilistic, and apparently entangled. We affect the way we experience this projected outside objective reality by how we condition ourselves to interpret its signals. We form symbols in our conscious minds of what we experience. That is to say, it is our subjective perception and conditioning that determines what chocolate tastes like, not some objective property of the chocolate. We can modify our program to manipulate and interpret the data in any number of ways if we simply learn the language and apply the proper energy. We live in a giant conception. We can, indeed, control our own reality. Now, what exactly would you call someone who controls reality? Hmmm?

It is amazing and good to feel inspired! It is empowering to understand your inspiration.


No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: