Perceptual Phantoms

Let us suppose, prior to our birth; that we humans are energetic beings, able to lead full lifetimes of pure perception that lies beyond the confines of what is considered to be our baseline reality.

Let us then say, we are able to dictate our perception. That is to say, our outer, or higher self, if you will, controls what we see in our “base” form here in our aforementioned “baseline reality.”

How would we then, in our “base” form, occupying this reality, be able to assure that we know what humans look like?

To add greater depth and context, we all agree on the normative form that human beings take. We have an agreed upon definition for the anatomy of a human being. 4 limbs, 1 head, 10 fingers and toes, and so on. However, how do we know what information this conveys?

To add further clarity, what is the limitation of an individual’s perspective radius? To what end does one’s awareness stretch?

The visual data that we perceive to be someone’s arms, for instance, to them could be antennae, guided by energetic limbs that they’d be happy to spend hours telling you about. Then, what’s to say that our measurements of these limitations of perception are in any way accurate? How could you tell this person that they are objectively incorrect?

You see, the question is not “how do we know we’re humans?” We most certainly are, and that’s about the only thing we can say for sure; in my opinion at least. I offer this postulate on the principle of perception, and on how it is ubiquitously illusive.

How are we to know what life truly looks like through the eyes of another?

Scientifically speaking rigorous study, peer review, and overwhelming evidence is required before a new aspect, component, law, or theory may be presented for authoritative consideration. We do not simply shoot off the cuff with conjecture and call it science. That is firmly within the territory of pseudoscience. Even in pseudoscience there are often examples of rigorous study, extensive analysis, and research to support its claims. As such this thought experiment is to be considered knowing that its author is quite aware of the processes required to bring forth a new contribution to any scientific field. Thus, I ask this question:

What if the existence of driving a car to one person is more akin to the experience of eating to another?

Both are learned behaviors that humans have developed techniques for throughout our time on earth. What force then has the authority to define our experience?

{An aside: I am well aware that this thought experiment delves into metaphysical territory. Yet, I do believe that we must consider what exactly our minds are. As well as where they are, we have theories, but there is no concrete evidence. Hence part of my purpose in this thought experiment, I am not looking to define the “divine” or metaphysical here. That is a task too great for one person. My objective is to initiate a series of observations that may allow us to become more reductive as to what we consider processes of the brain and the physical body and that on the mind and the world around us that escapes our senses.}

In my humble opinion, heady topics such as this hold far more weight than they receive credit for. As humanity rapidly approaches the precipice of the next epoch in the evolution our technologically integrated society, I fear we do not appreciate the gravity of such lines of inquisition. Furthermore, are we not then subject to arbitrary rules that are incongruent with our objective reality as a society?

It’s a thought.

What are we to do about the world’s that exist within the mind of another? The places we may go only if we know someone so intimately as to understand what they see, how they perceive things.

How could you convince someone that our heads are not held up by arms that are invisible to everyone else, but are visible to ourselves; the owners of said appendage's? This is a crude example I know however, the idea is that something which to us may seem impossible and illogical could be someone else’s reality, their very reason for being even. What are we to do about this?

Now consider that it is likely nearly everyone in existence has a belief like this that we rarely speak about.

That much like the internet there are deep and dark webs of consciousness. What will this mean as our technology incrementally approaches a level of function that will rival the cognitive activity that we observe in animals we consider to be “less developed” on the whole as compared to ourselves? Then when it rivals us? As society sways in its attempts to avoid bowing, and collapsing inwardly on itself these questions seem to be overlooked. We instead seem to be more concerned with the advancements that will propel us into the future. Despite considering the lessons that we as a “considerably developed” society have yet to learn.

Will we not be content until mass psychosis has us all in its grip? Unfortunately, I cannot say, as much as I have studied these subjects and ones that relate to them, I must acknowledge that I am not an authority in this field. Something as delicate as mass psychosis demands the utmost care, caution, and attention. Predictive models for such phenomena would have to undergo countless iterations before even being brought forth as possible evidence.

However, there is historical precedence for happenings such as these. Nazi Germany during the height of World War II immediately springs to mind. Where an entire country was blind to one of the largest genocides being conducted in their faces. It was, normal, until it wasn’t. I’m afraid that we are facing another crisis such as this or shall soon on a much larger scale. This time who will be the ones to decide that what’s happening is wrong and stands to oppose it? And this time, will they be the ones to succeed?

While I’m sure that we’re decades off from this looming crisis I know that the solutions to it are being proposed today.

Thank you,

- KS