Reply to comment

While I find the sheer number of neurons in our bodies to be impressive, I am more interested by the idea that (far) less than .01% of our neurons are in contact with the world. The brain itself is isolated from the world, as it has no direct connection to the world. Then with 99.99% of our neurons being interneurons, very little of our nervous system really has a direct perception of the world. After those very few sensory neurons, everything is essentially transmitted as chemical and electrical signals with varying concentrations and frequencies. The world can only exist to our brains through the medium (or filter) of our nervous system.

As Emily Dickinson tells us, the mind contains the world, but it’s also interesting to consider that the mind can never come into contact with this world (assuming that mind is limited to the brain and not a transcendent aspect of the self). As the mind contains a world that it can only know through the medium of our nervous system, the world that we “know,” is not as it is in-and-of-itself (the world qua world). However, we can never know what we miss by viewing the world through the lens of our mind. I suppose this goes back to the tree in the woods question, as one may ask if the world un-perceived exists or even matters.