Shine a light
Recently an interesting idea started occupying my mind. Gradually, slowly, until it grew from tiny seed to a new way of categorizing existence itsef. This happened, I believe, over the course of a couple of weeks and the process was of some interest. It culminated in my sudden need to pull all the resources I could think of in order to make sense of it all.
Naturally, I still haven’t made sense of it all…but the perspective is one worth outlining none the less.
Consider, if you will, what our vision exists out of. First, light hits our eyes and bounces off the Retina (which is a collection of neurons). These neurons interpret the light and “chemicalize” the interpretation. These chemicals are then transmitted to distinct parts in our brains, which “translate” the chemicals and construct an image that can be reacted to.
What does that mean?
On its most practical level, it means that the light, that is, the actual thing that is, never reaches the brains. In stead, an interpretation of that what is reaches the brains. Think this through and then become aware of the implications. If light never hits the brains, if the brains have no fair shot at receiving the actual state of affairs, the brains are rendered potentially highly fallible. Fool the eyes and you fool the brains. Fool the brains and…well…bad stuff generally starts happening. This doesn’t just go for the eyes, either. All five senses suffer from the same inherent weakness. If this weakness is abused it would surely be a fairly dangerous situation for our survival.
But even when we’re not looking at it from a Darwinian angle we can see that there are implications that deserve some screen time. If the brain is what decides on our actions and ultimate interpretations of both perception and reasoning…then having no fair shot at receiving that what actually is might be disruptive to our overall progress and understanding. “Believing it when I see it” requires of my neurons to transmit adequate data. Since there appears to be no way to truly verify this data one will, or should, live in a constant moment of self doubt.
The problem ultimately is that it appears that we cannot be sure of the things we see…while basing that statement on something I have seen (namely the books on human perception…and to a further extent, the scientific research pertaining to light and vision relying on vision.)
I have not yet found the answer to that particular problem. It seems that the scientific process pertaining to how our vision works has simply not yet come to an end…even if most think that it has. It has come to a satisfactory (to me) ending once it has dealt with this perceived discrepancy…by either disproving the reasoning, or proving the adequacy of our perception.