as real as it gets...

as real as it gets...


Reality. What is it and is it of a fixed/universal nature or is each individual the sole arbiter of their own personal reality. Is perception, as the saying goes, 100% of reality; or is reality something bigger than our senses, and grander than the interpretation of our small limited finite brain.

I would like to start with the claim that yes reality is governed by our own limits of perception. The world around us only exists as we perceive it does. We are simply incapable of knowing anything that cannot be known and we are incapable of knowing anything that cannot be perceived (or has not been perceived yet). The Matrix being an excellent example of this; in that we could be simply be fed electrical signals to our brain and that is reality. What is perceived in the matrix is real to the person perceiving it. “So if I die in the matrix do I really die”….. “your mind makes it real”. One might purport that indeed there was a larger “real” wold outside the matrix, being that the fact that a physical being acted out their will by means of an incorporeal avatar in a non-physical world. This is in STARK contrast to a reality where incorporeal (e.g. spirit) beings act out their will by means of a physical body in a matter bound world. Though if there is a larger world outside the matrix does that make the matrix less than reality? Certainly not, the matrix is reality to the people that perceive it as such, and the matrix is only unreal to the unplugged because their level of perception has increased. Yet even for the people out side of the matrix they are accepting their new “real” world as they perceive it just as they did in the matrix so what really is the dividing line betwixt one reality and the next. What makes reality “A” fake and reality “B” legitimate? The only difference is the level of perception that an individual or group of individuals have. As the level of perception is increased the awareness of reality is proportionately raised. Using this algorithm we come to the conclusion that to perceive reality at its highest level one would have to have the highest amount of perception (omniscience). All other realities beneath it would be of artificial construct and perception based.

Even the process of defining reality and the world around us known as the scientific process, is based on what? It is based on the process observable (perceivable) results that can be repeated. Without perceived truth there is no science. Consider quantum mechanics which dictates that if we observe/measure a particle, that our very observation will dictate its state. It was believed by some centuries ago that the earth was carried on the back of a turtle in the middle of a giant ocean. Now after raising our level of perception we know this to be false. Now science stands upon its ivory tower proclaiming that the world we perceive now is reaity (as opposed to a world that everything revolves around, or that was created by ice giants, or rides on the back of an over sized aquatic reptile). Yet as we reach the limits of our knowledge of the universe and approach the singularity of information that is unknown and that wich cannot be known, I fail to believe that we understand the totality of reality in this vast universe. As such just as ancient man was proven wrong it would be arrogant of us to believe that we can stake a claim on what is real and what isn't
Consider on a social level when people perceive one another. Similar to the fact that we don’t physically see any one ever (we don’t see them we see light that has reflected off of them at varying wavelengths and that information is interpreted by our brain) we don’t interact with the person, we interact with the image of them that exists in our mind. Example: some people think that billy is nice, others think that he is mean. Wich one is the real billy? Is billy nice or is he mean? The common answer is that Billy is both, that is both a nice person and a mean person at different times to different people. This basic view is not the correct answer. Both group “A” and group “B” the people that think he is nice and the group that think he is mean never interacted with billy in the 1st place. They interacted with a mental construct based on information that has been received, decoded and interpreted by their brain. This mental construct was built over time (possibly only seconds) based on both 1st hand (direct interaction with billy) and 2nd hand (hearing about billys words and deeds from others e.g. gossip) information. The fact that billys actions can be interpreted differently by different people goes to saying that it is the perception of those actions not the actions them selves that dictate weather billy will be seen as mean or nice. Though billys use of what he thinks are “nice” actions could be received as ill by those around him (and vice versa), we see that weather billy is mean or nice is created on the receiving end, not the sent. The people cannot control billys actions only how they CHOOSE, based on their past experiences, world view, and belief system, to perceive those actions on a per person basis.