Reply to comment

If different brains construct the same things differently, does this mean reality is of infinite potential? How do we shape our realities and affect the ways in which other peoples’ realities are constructed? This seems to put us back in the realm of Emily Dickinson, who posited the infinite capacity of the brain to interpret and shape one’s world, with the I-function (her version of it) serving as one component of experience. If the nervous system is wired so that we only physically can see a portion of what exists, does that make everything else less “real?” Is reality relative? Sometimes, the nervous system and the I-function receive different information or generate different inputs and corresponding outputs, are both “real?” Is one more real than the other?

When people conflate senses, seeing color as numbers or experiencing pain as color for example, does this synesthesia constitute reality? “Synesthesia is an involuntary joining in which the real information of one sense is accompanied by a perception in another sense. In addition to being involuntary, this additional perception is regarded by the synesthete as real, often outside the body, instead of imagined in the mind's eye. It also has some other interesting features that clearly separate it from artistic fancy or purple prose. Its reality and vividness are what make synesthesia so interesting in its violation of conventional perception. Synesthesia is also fascinating because logically it should not be a product of the human brain, where the evolutionary trend has been for increasing separation of function anatomically” R. Cytowic, "Synesthesia: A Union of the Senses" Springer-Verlag, NY (p.1) Taken from: http://web.mit.edu/synesthesia/www/

If reality can be seen as a construction of the nervous system, and the role of the I-function to provide a system of checks and balances, this lends itself to the I-function providing context and texture, color, of sorts, to experience. And also, it enables the possibility for two people to see the same things differently and for one person, over time, to alter her perceptions. How is “self” defined? Is self then just another perception, a construction of the nervous system? The I-function must both generate and shape reality…

I’m not sure about the notion of “ultimate reality.” This reminds me of Plato’s allegory of the cave: http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm We give names to concepts, to abstract ideas and to that which we can hold in our hands. As per Plato’s interpretation, the very act of naming something does not make it real, nor does it mean we can “know” that thing. Is the tangible world a cave? Is “real” what we conceive of in our heads, the concepts, which are universal, as opposed to things we “see” and attribute meaning based upon our cultural values, experience and expectations? Does then our knowledge of the existence of certain things or belief make things less real? So the things to which we give names and posit as ‘”real” are not as real as our perceptions… No two I-functions are identical so no two realities can be identical.