Using the criteria of Inter-subjective Verification and Pragmatic Reality I would like to share some things about perceived reality and some things that are considered realities by many, to broaden your mind that other ‘realities’ exist outside the ones we’ve been externally programmed to believe.
Our eyes only reveal 1% of what is real. We’ve been taught to believe that we are matter and that matter is real.
Arguments for Matter as a Mental Projection
The view that matter is a projection of the mind—not an independent reality—draws from philosophical idealism, empirical studies, and theoretical frameworks. Below are key arguments used to explain this perspective:
1. Philosophical Idealism: Reality as Mind-Dependent
- Berkeley’s Subjective Idealism: George Berkeley argued that objects only exist when perceived (“esse est percipi“). For example, a tree exists because we perceive it; without a mind to observe it, the tree has no independent reality.
- Kant’s Transcendental Idealism: Immanuel Kant posited that the mind structures reality through innate categories (e.g., space, time). What we call “matter” is a mental representation shaped by these categories, not a thing-in-itself.
- Schopenhauer’s Will-Centric View: Arthur Schopenhauer claimed that what we perceive as external objects are mere representations of an underlying “Will.” Direct knowledge of reality is only accessible through our own consciousness; others’ minds (and matter) are inferred, not directly experienced.
2. Projectivism: The Mind’s Role in Attributing Reality
- Humean Projection: David Hume observed that humans habitually project internal experiences (e.g., emotions, beliefs) onto external objects. For instance, we call a sunset “beautiful,” but this quality is a mental projection, not inherent to light wavelengths.
- Mind Projection Fallacy: This cognitive error occurs when we treat subjective constructs (e.g., probability, meaning) as properties of matter itself. For example, calling a coin “50% likely to be heads” confuses mental uncertainty with the coin’s physical state. Matter, in this view, is a blank canvas for psychological projections.
3. Scientific and Empirical Support
- Consciousness-Driven Physics: Studies suggest consciousness may shape physical reality. The Institute of Noetic Sciences demonstrated that focused intention can influence quantum systems, implying that matter responds to mental states.
- Consciousness as Fundamental: Theories like panpsychism propose that mind is inherent to all matter. If neurons generate consciousness, simpler matter (e.g., electrons) may possess rudimentary mind-like properties, blurring the line between mental and physical.
- Neurobiological Projection: Research into the “projective theory of consciousness” indicates that the brain constructs perceptual reality. Sensory input is filtered through neural frameworks, making what we perceive a simulation rather than raw reality.
Key Metaphors for Clarity
- The Map-Territory Fallacy: Mistaking mental models (the “map”) for reality (the “territory”) illustrates why matter cannot be separated from perception.
- Dream Analogy: Just as dream objects feel real but are mind-generated, waking “matter” may be an immersive projection.