I know that many people would not believe me when I tell them that there is a man who flickers and can see Constant. It contradicts their senses and beliefs about the laws of this world. I have given some thought as to why people may choose not to believe some stories but then easily choose to believe others, and I think it is imperative that I explain it to you.
In my opinion, our beliefs are created by our consciousness. But what is Consciousness? Some people define consciousness as our ability to be aware of things. My belief is that consciousness is an inherent tool that humans possess that separates truth from falsehood. Another property of this tool is that it is social in nature; in order to validate whether a concept or object is true, you need another being to confirm its existence.
Let me explain, and I hope my explanation can be as enthusiastic and well-explained as The Flickering Man’s. We are all predisposed with sensory organs that had developed over thousands of years since the time our ancestors were primal apes in the grasslands of Africa. Eyes enable us to perceive a certain range of light. Ears enable us to perceive a certain range of sound waves. Skin allows us to perceive a certain range of temperature. Tongue allows us to perceive a certain range of taste. Nose allows us to perceive a certain range of smell. These are evolutionary developments that help the human self to receive inputs from the external environment. Our development is not unique to other life forms on this planet. In fact, some species of apes like the chimpanzees come very close in biology to humans that their sensory input could very well be similar if not better than us humans.
But sensory inputs without consciousness would render all these sensory inputs meaningless. Without the tool to determine if our sensory inputs is real and has value, we would be able to perceive, but not acknowledge or understand them. This inability would render non-humans to live by the natural cycles of the world, blindly driven by their own chemical hormones and changes in the external environment.
So now, let me try to explain how our consciousness tool work. I see a red ball lying on the sands of the beach. The ball belongs to the external environment. Red light waves bounced off the ball and is captured by the photoreceptors in my eyes. I think the ball is lying on the sands of the beach. I think the ball is red. I think gravity is keeping the ball lying motionless. I think that the ball is about ten metres away from me. This process is what humans and other organism that have similar sensory input organs experience an infinite number of times at every given second. However, without the ability or tool to comprehend the realness of the ball, these experiences never amount to something significant to me. Some people may argue and bring up the defence that animals too can comprehend their surroundings and make sense of them to manipulate their environment in their favour. I acknowledge that they are able to manipulate their environment, but I disagree in relating the similarity in how we comprehend compared to non-human beings comprehend things. Theirs is a system of acculturated motions and instincts - I do this, I get a response like this - but in humans, our comprehension is based on, first and foremost, determining the realness of something and then trial and testing more logic to eventually create an understanding.
Thus, the second part of this consciousness tool theory is the inherent truth-value tool - a social tool because you will need another being for it to work. In the example of the red ball, I can only know that the ball is real by verifying it with another person. A person can kick the ball to me. My assumptions on gravity and the weight of the ball is verified. A person can point to the ball. My assumptions that the ball exists and the distance of the ball to me is right. A person can ask for me to get 'the red ball’. My assumptions about the colour of the ball is right.
There is an interesting fact that blew my mind the other day and that is, we cannot actually know if another person perceive colours the same way we perceive colours. You see, photoreceptors in our eyes receive photons from light and these photoreceptors converts this input into electric signals that the brain interprets. However, research have shown that the number and type of photoreceptors vary from person to person and just like fingerprints, are actually unique from human to human. Thus, each person should be receiving inputs of colours differently from another person. My orange is not your orange! But there is one thing we can all agree and that is, my orange colour (the way I see it), is also your orange colour.
Thus, when I tell you that there exists a Man that Flickers and can see Constant, I dare not expect many to believe me because they themselves have not seen a man that can flicker or see Constant, nor verified this phenomenon with someone that has met such a Man. Perhaps you may have seen such a man in a sci-fi flick, and thus this plausibility is perhaps… plausibly real to you. For me, although by my definition of the consciousness tool the realness of this Man is if I can verify his existence with another person, I had verified his existence when I interacted with him whom I consider a conscious being. Thus, for me, forever, he exists. The Man Who Can See Constant.
No comments:
Post a Comment