![](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/ad420a_1acb4d42c29a4a028573825ec16e3917~mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_765,h_430,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,enc_avif,quality_auto/ad420a_1acb4d42c29a4a028573825ec16e3917~mv2.jpg)
Prisoners of Shared Vision?
In the intricate labyrinth of human experience, our eyes play a paramount role as windows to the world. Yet, within their seemingly infinite expanse, these visual instruments harbor limitations that prompt profound introspection. In our relentless pursuit of understanding, we embark upon a journey, often believing that through these twin apertures, we can behold reality in its unadulterated form. We find solace in the notion that what we perceive through our eyes is the foundation of comprehending the intricate tapestry of existence that envelops us. However, delving deeper, we uncover a perplexing question that challenges this assurance: How can we be certain that when two pairs of eyes converge upon the same focal point, they indeed apprehend the same reality?
This inquiry echoes as an age-old enigma that probes the very essence of human perception. Consider a scene: individuals gazing at an object, united in their directional gaze, yet possibly perceiving distinct interpretations of the same entity. Contemplation beckons - could it be plausible that two minds, two sets of eyes, might truly see a given object's form in identical fashion? Can we truly claim unwavering certainty in sharing the precise qualities of an object or phenomenon? Pondering further, a cascade of questions ensues: Do we all view an object from the same perspective, or have we merely adopted a convention that labels specific attributes in a predetermined manner?
Our common biological makeup, binding us in shared structures, entices us to believe that our sensory organs are predisposed to categorize and interpret parallel qualities from the visual world. This notion, seemingly grounded in reality, prompts contemplation. The ultimate litmus test, though speculative, would involve venturing into the realm of another's senses, perceiving the world through their lenses, and contrasting the experience with the impressions our own body conveys.
A cerulean sky stretches above, yet the veracity of its hue stands as a product of nomenclature rather than concrete assurance. We've been taught to call the hue "blue," yet can we be certain that the blue you perceive mirrors the blue that another does? In this scenario, the commonality of language constructs an agreement, yet a chasm of doubt persists. This uncertainty further extends to shapes. Attempting to elucidate form to those bereft of sight necessitates conventions. A form is comprised of sides; but what constitutes a side? Is it a straight line - a line bereft of curvature? Yet, if one were to glimpse a curve that's been branded as a straight line, would they adopt this classification?
Intriguingly, lines, ostensibly so straightforward, unfurl intricate quandaries when met with curved realms. A line, perpetually extending without returning, stands as a canonical image. However, should we position this concept in a curved universe, questions arise. A line along a mountaintop and a line along the sea's edge - are they identical in perception? The observer's vantage point manifests varied dimensions, yet we've been indoctrinated to a shared lexicon that unifies our diverse viewpoints.
Consider those deprived of sight. How many dimensions do they perceive? Would their world take form on a two-dimensional plane? Alas, the crux of the matter lies in the realization that our understanding of the world hinges on a blend of shared conventions and personal experiences. We inhabit a reality sculpted by both biology and the confines of our senses. Still, the finality we ardently desire remains elusive.
As such, we find ourselves poised on the precipice of paradox - creatures both anchored in shared understanding and floating in a sea of private perceptions. We shape our realities from common elements, yet the intricate interplay of individuality and experience fosters an intricate mosaic, diverging ever so slightly between each individual. Are we, perhaps, captives within the realm of a shared vision?
Embracing the Uncertainty
In the realm of our understanding, a silent symphony of conventions orchestrates our perceptions. Certainties, woven into the fabric of our reality, rest upon the foundation of collective agreement, where our minds have settled upon perceiving facets of existence in predefined ways, offering them names that resonate across our shared human experience. It is within this intricate network of conventions that our certainty finds its roots, yet here, too, lies a paradox - a realm where conviction and doubt coalesce.
Imagine, if you will, that we are ensconced within a box. The box represents our understanding, the walls its limits. Those nuanced shades we perceive are merely the contours of these walls - walls we can see but cannot touch. Unlike Plato's allegorical cave, where inhabitants can pivot to behold the light, our predicament is one of confinement within a box. Within these limits, there's no glimmer of light to observe, no perspective to turn to. Here, our quest is not to understand an external reality, but to fathom the boundaries that frame our understanding.
Acceptance dawns as the gateway to illumination, an acceptance of the ever-present doubt that shrouds our perceptions. Doubt, however, is a specter that cannot be directly proved or disproved, as its nature defies empirical capture. Our only recourse is to embrace the doubt - a doubt that arises not from skepticism, but from the profound understanding of the constraints that govern our perception.
In this acceptance, we transcend resignation, transforming it into a spirit of inquiry. We come to terms with the idea that our current grasp of reality is contingent upon our limited capacities, both biologically and technologically. It's an embrace of not-knowing, a recognition that we are confined by the intricacies of our sensory apparatus and the confines of our environment.
The question that lingers, then, is whether this acceptance is a humble surrender or an impetus for discovery. It's a delicate balance between embracing the limitations of our current understanding and nurturing the spark of curiosity that compels us to venture beyond these confines. It is, in essence, a testament to the dual nature of human exploration - a blend of humility and aspiration.
Will we ever possess the tools, the evolutionary insights, the scientific prowess, or the empathic connectivity to traverse the boundary separating our perceptions from a more fundamental reality? We can only speculate, but for now, we stand at the precipice of understanding, gazing into the abyss of the unknown, and accepting the realm of doubt that surrounds us.
As we navigate this intricate dance between perception and reality, we dwell within a paradox - acknowledging the possibility of illusion while cautiously holding to our constructs. The nature of reality, perhaps, is a fleeting mirage that perpetually shapeshifts, eluding our grasp even as we stretch to comprehend it. In this acceptance of uncertainty, we nurture a curiosity that drives our journey, ensuring that the exploration of our perceptions remains an evolving saga, and the boundaries of our understanding remain forever mutable.
Shifting Realities: From Senses to Screens
Human beings are naturally outward-oriented, with their attention primarily focused on the world around them. They are more attuned to sounds from the street, even when they originate tens of meters away, than to the rhythm of their own heartbeat. This heightened sensitivity may be rooted in survival instincts, as dangers and challenges to their well-being often arise from their immediate surroundings. Consequently, humans have evolved their senses as tools for survival, allowing them to escape adversity and interpret phenomena to take proactive measures.
However, the limitations of human faculties become evident in the vastness of the external world. To understand it, humans must break it down into manageable pieces, categorize and classify it, and distort it to fit within their cognitive grasp. Moreover, their senses serve specific purposes, primarily oriented towards survival. They perceive what is essential for survival and only secondarily register other stimuli. This inherent bias makes it easy to deceive human senses because stimuli come from the external environment, and humans are naturally externally oriented.
For instance, when standing on a beach by the seashore, the crashing waves dictate humans orientation and perception of reality. Humans passively receive the messages conveyed by their environment. Similarly, within the confines of an ancient cathedral, even a sigh or a creak reverberates in every corner, transforming into a thunderous event. This is not a random occurrence but a deliberate architectural design choice that creates an environment where sound expands and becomes significant, guiding human senses toward the spoken words of the priest.
Therefore, by altering their environment, humans change their perception of reality. In a cathedral, the priest's words become absolute truth, the building embodies the surrounding reality, and the individuals inside the structure form a community essential for their social instincts. Socialization is, after all, a fundamental component of survival.
However, when this cathedral-like environment transforms into a television screen, reality undergoes another shift. The community changes, shaped by the environmental information required for adaptation and survival. The concept of community narrows to a smaller, more restricted group, while outsiders are perceived as potential threats. Human perception of reality evolves in tandem with the changing environment, and their attention is redirected to a smaller, more limited space.
With the advent of smaller and closer screens, reality continues to contract, and individualism intensifies. The community now consists solely of the self, and reality is confined to a few inches of screen space—a rational, marketable universe. Here, a paradox arises: while the quantity of information increases, reality loses depth, both as a material and philosophical experience.
In ancient times, the stars dominated human perception. The vast majority of their reality was the celestial expanse. Humans were enveloped by this reality, mere dots at the center of a sphere, with a perception of space, time, and external messages profoundly distinct from today's. The positioning of humans in relation to these celestial factors was unlike anything that contemporary readers will ever experience.