What our indispensable life narratives tell us for sure is, that our perception of the reality of the world is very individual and specific to training and abilities and past experiences. We may hear sounds but not perceive it as music but merely noise, we may pass a rock formation where others see sculpture, we may smell delicious food while others only odor, we may perceive danger upon touch, while others only refinements of luxury alligator skin purse, we may perceive convex, others concave space, looking at flat wall.
So why, we appear to react to seemingly the same sensations with sometimes completely opposite perceptions of what is actually happening in world that surrounds us? Is it because of our individually categorized, limited cultural precepts or authority driven, religious, ideological, scientific or other perception framings of our sensations?
Over centuries ago learned people of authority truly perceived thunderstorm phenomenon, with all frightening audio-visual thermal and pressure sensations, as heavenly induced punishment, “mathematically” correlated with degree of sinfulness of the population. Perception framing authority was so “persuasive”, that there were only few skeptics and they did not last. One of our contemporary framing authorities, called science, is little more benign, telling human race bluntly now to perceive thunderstorm as natural, while still mostly unknown in its essence, phenomenon, after ages of futile attempts to keep our chastity for meteorological reasons. Giving us instead just different, but not as dramatic story on how to collate and interpret our sensations in specific arbitrary groups and in specific arbitrary ways. They called it scientific or materialistic ways, which was proven, be useful and practical but still offer no insight into reality but merely few recipes for desired outcome.
Clearly perceptions give us little insight into outside world except for some expedient narratives to perhaps agitate or calm us down. So may be sensations could provide us with more inside about true world or reality that surrounds us? But there is a problem. Our sensations are highly individualistic as well, heat/cold, pressure, pain, smell, taste as well as, to large degree, our vision and hearing are subject to heavy filtering (arbitrary exclusions of incoming stimuli) and sense-distortion before they are perceived in any way. Good example of this is individualized sensation of heat. Depending on our mental state and physical state, we sense heat/cold much differently and it’s no consolation, to us suffering from cold/heat, fact that our other sense (vision) trying to convince us, that all we perceive is an illusion of our mind (or body) only because “mysterious” temperature says is normal. Science tells us correctly, not to trust our, easily fooled, senses. So what to trust in pursuit of reality of the world?
Science says that we need to trust, first of all, pure conceptions of our mind, and forget our own individual perceptions or sensations if they conflict with our “scientific or materialistic” worldview. Ironically, being obviously wrong on what reality of outside world, they are not so far from the truth about fragility of our senses. What contemporary science clearly misses however, is the fact that knowledge acquired solely via conceptualized external sense perception (a recipe) is not inferior in itself as a description of our true reality, as compared to knowledge derived from abstract constructions of our mind (a theory) like mathematics. It’s because they both are likely incorrect on that point. Close examination of the issue reveals that so-called scientific experimental proof is impossibility. Simply because our sense perception is a filtering tool acutely tuned to input data consistent with our preconceived, conceptualized knowledge about specific issue, leaving ocean of stimuli un-sensed and/or unexplored since no perception mechanism for them has been established. By conducting an experiments scientists limit themselves to intelligible answers only, consistent with their scientific narratives, among flood of “results” they are incapable to even perceive and ultimately ignore them. This fact is not a secret but is proudly hailed as principle of scientific research. In material world of scientific inquiry quest for external, so-called objective reality is openly sacrificed on altar of consistency or inconsistency with prevailing scientific narratives. All conducted in similar way as religious inquiries into nature of reality of heavenly world were aimed to prove or disprove observations as being consistent (right) or inconsistent (wrong) with religious dogmas. The dogmas were never questioned, just observations. Scientists also never question their dogmas about wonders of the universe, they simply discard them at their convenience, and replace them with new absolute truths of a day.
What if, in order to access external reality, acquisition of (alien to us) sense perceptions is required but not sufficient to recognize its existence. What if our sensations were in weak relation or in no relation at all to underlying objective reality. What if we are unable to even conceptualize objective reality within our mind. The concept of noumenon(a) type of unknown entity(ies) of “primordial” objective reality(ies) beyond our perception or sensation as well as beyond our ability to conceptualize it applying methods of our transcendental mind, is as close as it gets to pure a form of idea of nothingness. Is this dead-end? Is there anything we can say about “objective realities” anyway? So let’s ask: what is “objective reality”? Stay tuned.