Reply to comment

The discussion about reality as a story really intrigued me.  When I think about it, I feel that there are two aspects to discussion, perceived reality, and actual reality.  It seems obvious to me that perceived reality is a story created by whoever is perceiving the reality.  A human’s reality is different from a dog’s, and I feel that its safe to say that one human’s reality even differs from another, and one dog’s reality differs from another.  Each individual perceives a reality different from everyone else for two reasons.  First, no individual has the same experiences, and different experiences change the way one views reality.  Second, the anatomical “machinery” used to convert the actual reality into something perceivable differs from one individual to another.  All humans may have the same general anatomy, but no two humans have the exact same eyes or neural networks.  Ultimately, everyone has their own story of reality.

The notion of different perceptions of reality is straightforward, simple, logical, and an argument in which most would agree.  A discussion about an actual reality is much more theoretical and up for debate.  Many would argue that there is an inherent actual reality that we can never truly experience, but does in fact exist.  Initially, when I began thinking about this I agreed, but the more I think about it, the more unsure I am.  If no organism can truly experience the actual reality, than does the actual reality actually exist?  This is exactly the same as the age old philosophical question: If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?  A part of me wants to say it doesn’t, but at the same time a part wants to say it does.  I am torn. 

Although there are aspects of reality that change from individual to individual, such as the way they experience seeing color, or the way they experience hearing something, but there are physical constants that are universal to all, aren’t there?  For example, everyone experiences time in the same manor.  A second to one individual is a second to another, right?  Well, theoretically, it is conceptually possible that one person experiences time differently than another.  Everyone knows what a second is, but that doesn’t me that one’s experience of a second is not different than another’s.  A second to one may be the experiential equivalent to 1.25 seconds of another.  That could explain why some people are better at sports…things just move a little slower for them.   Now this is just a theoretical possibility, and although it may not be correct, I don’t see any evidence that suggests it’s wrong.    

But, at the same time, I feel like there must be some inherent, actual reality, that everyone experiences, but in a different way.  Even if we do experience time differently, I feel that the difference is created at the biological level, not the physical.  The bottom line, however, is that there is no way we will ever know what this inherent, actual reality is, Likewise there is no way to know who’s story of reality is closer to the actual reality, or if we get closer or farther away from reality as we, as a species evolve.   

Here’s an interesting question: if there is an actual reality, and if Darwin’s theory of natural selection is correct, would evolution force our perception of reality closer or further away from actual reality?