Ask aloud whether realÂiÂty is real, and you’re liable to be regardÂed as nevÂer truÂly havÂing left the freshÂman dorm. But that quesÂtion has received, and conÂtinÂues to receive, conÂsidÂerÂaÂtion from actuÂal sciÂenÂtists. The Big Think video above assemÂbles sevÂen of them to explain how they think about it, and how they see its relÂeÂvance to the enterÂprise of human underÂstandÂing. For the most part, they seem to agree that, even if we accept that someÂthing called “realÂiÂty” objecÂtiveÂly exists, of more immeÂdiÂate relÂeÂvance is the fact that we can’t perÂceive that realÂiÂty directÂly. Any inforÂmaÂtion we receive about it comes to our brain through our sensÂes, and they have their own ways of interÂpretÂing things.
As cogÂniÂtive psyÂcholÂoÂgist DonÂald HoffÂman puts it, our sensÂes are “makÂing up the tastes, odors, and colÂors that we expeÂriÂence. They’re not propÂerÂties of an objecÂtive realÂiÂty; they’re actuÂalÂly propÂerÂties of our sensÂes that they’re fabÂriÂcatÂing.” What’s physÂiÂcalÂly objecÂtive “would conÂtinÂue to exist even if there were no creaÂtures to perÂceive it.”
ThereÂfore, “colÂors, odors, tastes, and so on are not real in that sense,” yet they are “real expeÂriÂences”; the trick of sepÂaÂratÂing what exists in objecÂtive realÂiÂty from what only exists in our minds as a result of that objecÂtive realÂiÂty — “the beginÂning of the sciÂenÂtifÂic method,” as evoÂluÂtionÂary biolÂoÂgist Heather HeyÂing describes it — is an even more comÂpliÂcatÂed endeavÂor than it sounds.
“RealÂiÂty, for us, is what we can sense withÂout senÂsoÂry surÂfaces, and what we can make sense of with the sigÂnals in our brain,” says SevÂen and a Half Lessons About the Brain author Lisa FeldÂman BarÂrett in the video just above. “Trapped in its own dark, silent box called your skull,” your brain “has no knowlÂedge of what is going on around it in the world, or in the body.” It does receive sigÂnals from the sensÂes, “which are the outÂcome of some changes in the world or in the body, but the brain doesÂn’t know what the changes are.” With only inforÂmaÂtion about effects, it uses past expeÂriÂence to conÂstruct guessÂes about their causÂes and conÂtexts. We might also call that funcÂtion imagÂiÂnaÂtion, and no sciÂenÂtists worth their salt can do withÂout a good deal of it.
RelatÂed conÂtent:
Is ConÂsciousÂness an IlluÂsion? Five Experts in SciÂence, ReliÂgion & TechÂnolÂoÂgy Explain
Alan Watts On Why Our Minds And TechÂnolÂoÂgy Can’t Grasp RealÂiÂty
The SimÂuÂlaÂtion TheÂoÂry Explained In Three AniÂmatÂed Videos
Based in Seoul, ColÂin Marshall writes and broadÂcasts on cities, lanÂguage, and culÂture. His projects include the SubÂstack newsletÂter Books on Cities and the book The StateÂless City: a Walk through 21st-CenÂtuÂry Los AngeÂles. FolÂlow him on TwitÂter at @colinmarshall or on FaceÂbook.
The artiÂcle has an error in Lisa FeldÂman BarÂretÂt’s quote. The artiÂcle says “what we can sense WITHOUT senÂsoÂry surÂfaces,” but it should be “what we can sense WITH OUR senÂsoÂry surÂfaces.”