The space inside your head

I was listening to Joseph Campbell give a lecture recently and he brought up Immanual Kant's question (to paraphrase): 'How is it that the mathematical calculations I make inside my head are the same mathematical equations that can be used to describe the world outside of my head, i.e. the orbit of the moon?' It reminded me as well of something I once heard Alan Watts say: 'Your eyes light the sun as much as the sun lights your eyes.' Also it is similar to something I heard Rupert Sheldrake speak about several times, saying 'What you see is as much something projected outward from your mind as it is stimulus coming in through your retina.'

I can't get my head around this concept but it seems that these men who I consider to be great thinkers of our time have all come to agreement on the proposition. But if my eyes were to go blind the sun would still be emitting the electromagnetic waves of the visible light spectrum. Has anyone else ever come across this idea? Can anyone maybe state this principle in another way, I don't seem to be able to grasp the core of it.

I'm not sure if I can simplify or clarify it but I think I understand it...

When we discover the equation which allows us to calculate the orbit of the moon, something internal to our minds reflects something which is a physical fact of nature. The same thing sits in both your head, and in nature. The exact same one. It is transcendent, yet immanent - it sits behind realities like space and time, yet informs them. We aren't used to understanding things in that way, because we are more inclined to consider things as objects, with a physical existence, or as concepts, with no direct physical manifestation.

The Watts quote seems to be a reflection on the role of observers, similar to that familiar koan "If a tree falls in a forest and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". We can postulate that the sun shines whether we observe it or not, but we do not and cannot have any way of knowing that. Consider quantum indeterminacy - something is only a probability until it is observed. Observation is a necessary factor in the manifestation of reality. What does "shine" mean without eyes? It is an inherent characteristic of "shining" that it is perceived.

He may also (dependent on the context) be making the same point Sheldrake appears to be making, that only the mind makes "sun", "shine", "eyes". One can easily imagine some alien observer appearing who sees sun and shine as a single "thing", or even sun, shine and a human observer's eye forming one "system". They see sunshineeyes. We see sun, and shine, and eyes.

We take what (bringing it full circle) Kant referred to as "the manifold of experience" and our minds "channel" it in certain ways. Eyes take light, ears take sound etc, but in a more fundamental way our eyes don't just take light without interference, we engage in the process of perceiving things as distinct objects, based on entirely subjective criteria. The ears do the same with sound.

What I derive from that is that is distinction is being made between the objective occurrence of an event (subject to debate, sure, but not entirely germane) and the sensory experience and impression of the event.

Sure, light will still issue from the sun, but the experience you have of visible light is mediated by gross senses as a way to make the experience of that radiation comprehensible and useful.

Consider a strawberry. Lots of sugar. But sweetness is how our taste buds and brain classify that experience to make it pleasant. Is it inherently sweet? Can an impression be an essential quality of an object?

What about the light spectrum you don't see. What if you saw less light? The radiation is present, but it is not part of your experience. What about the colors you can't see. You cannot imagine them. You cannot visualize them. Yet, there radiation at those frequencies.

This is not a value statement as such. It does lead one to wonder how closely ones subjective experience mirrors external events.

The reason you have trouble understanding Sheldrake and Watts on this is because it is nonsense. Not in the sense that it is false, just in the sense that the supposition of the truth of it doesn't make sense.
Yes, what you see is, give or take, your brain's reaction to the stimuli that come in, and the exact same light particles that were absorbed by your eyes will never be absorbed by anyone else's, yadda-yadda-yadda...
However, if we were to assume that our immaterial knowledge or understanding of the world did anything to change it, all of our knowledge and all of our understanding would immediately cease to be useful to us for it would apply to a world that does not exist thanks to us knowing about it and that world would keep evading us with every step we did. Yes, it is technically out of practical necessity that we assume that any one given object operates the same with and without a subject to observe it, but all implications derived from that assumption are strongly indicated if not outright verified by other evidence.
So, to sum it up, while you are the ultimate arbiter of your experience, you are not in control of the world or even the inputs you get from it. The images you "project", you really only project inside your head and nowhere outside short of discussing them with others or doing art or whatever; even for the inside only "project" isn't necessarily a good metaphor. It presumes that there is you and your brain, and then inside it sits something like a little other person, the real you, watching your brain's activity, which just shifts the perception problem one step further rather than solving it, raising more questions that way than would be answered.

Alright. Now that I've shat all over Watts and Sheldrake, I might as well stay this arrogant for a second and do my thing all over Kant, too, while I'm at it

To answer Kant's question: They aren't. I don't know if this was known in his day or just how scientifically Kant had been if it was. Our models of reality are only approximations, some better than others, but none quite perfect. That's why we're still working on it. Of course someday we just might have a mathematical model that would perfectly match observed reality given a few specified parameters, but until that day I can with good conscience remain this arrogant before his question through my humility before the incomplete knowledge mankind has. Assuming though that we lived in a time when it was all figured out, I think I'd answer the question like this, if I had to: It isn't so much that observed reality matches what we think. Rather, we think what matches observed reality. And that is so because it is of immense benefit to us in comparison with a thinking that wouldn't match the reality we find ourselves in.

Targeran Arynal wrote: Also it is similar to something I heard Rupert Sheldrake speak about several times, saying 'What you see is as much something projected outward from your mind as it is stimulus coming in through your retina.'

This quote makes me think of something I read in 'The Field.' It was the part talking about holographic images and how they're stored as a metaphor for human memory. It also touched on the idea that what we see is taken in through our eyes and then projected out into the world as a three dimensional holographic image as opposed to seeing things as if on a projector screen in our mind as was previously thought. This is what allows us depth perception. It kind of blew my mind to think that what I'm seeing is actually in my head but then projected out into the world. That could mean that if I'm looking at an object I might be seeing it differently than another might be and we'd never know it.

In the end that thought doesn't really change the way I live my life and this knowledge doesn't give me the ability to alter my perception (at least as far as I know, still learning) so I didn't spend too long thinking about it. It's a neat philosophical idea but is an apple still an apple? As far as I know it still is, it's still whatever color, flavor, and texture my mind has assigned to it.

Edit: What interests me more is the thought of what my mind doesn't project back out into the world for me to see. If it takes everything in, but can only project certain things, then there are things in the world that I am not seeing. That's a bit more fun for me to think about.

My sense is that what is projected is threefold:

A framework to make the experience usable to the organism, the meaning of the object or event, and the significance of the event. These can have a dramatic effect on how the organism understands what has occurred and how they will approach interaction.

My sense is that one should not get hung up. You work from your best understanding, but you know that you are ultimately interacting with the construct in your own consciousness first and the actual thing a distant second. I think so many of our social mistakes come from mistaking the object and the indicator. Your finger is not the moon, as they say.

I guess in response to Kant we can only be sure to the extent we can observe them. Watt's is correct IMO, the concept of 'shine' exists as a human view so the entire proposition exists within our minds. Sheldrake's quote really is a good view to take on mindfulness. Perception is a constuct of reality, a model, which is a simplified version of reality as determined by senses and as filtered by the subconscious, and interpreted by the conscious mind.

This reminds me of my Orb CD... <google sounds, clunk>;

"Man's achievement is to have created a world of the mind, of the intellect and imagination, which is as real in its way as any actual country on the map. Sir Karl Popper, in one of his most important papers, calls it "the third world," or World Three. The first world is the objective world of things. The second world is my inner subjective world. But, says Popper, there is a third world, the world of objective contents of thoughts... Teilhard de Chardin called this "third world" the noösphere-the world of mind."

Don't ask me how that relates to the Platonic World of mathematical forms, does anyone know!? I'm still reading Penrose to sort it out.

hello fellow Jedi.i found two new to science perspectives on the topic.the holographic universe perspective then the electric universe perspective.scientist are debating.but if you go on youtube listen to the proposers of the theory what they have to say with you visual brain have open it really lights up you imagination you start to morph your perspective.i for one delved so deep into the theory's an the discussions that I went down to the thought of a single atom saw how it work.stayed up for four days and was seeing color spectrums I've never observed I saw a grid that was all around me like a hologram..for a great vid series holographic discloser 1-14 by secretkeyactivator3 on youtube it is an life perspective changing seiries it is the sorcerers stone of vid presentations.it has a bbc type narrator and superb amateur vid editing visuals it will really expand your mind.his site sells a sigil reprogramming computer program you can customize but that's all he sells his vids are all on youtube it has a great section on how the eyes take in an image project on the back of the brain like a movie.he said in space you cannot see light the sun uses our field around it like a prism when in space all these nebulas in space ...colored are dome by computer graphics.i cannot explain its worth a watch.latley I'm coming down from the shock of the change in prospective.ohh yeah ww3 is taking my time away from my training.i know shame on me

Your mind creates, once it has, you experience.

Though not necessarily directly related, I'm reminded of this...

How Many Heads Do You Have?