Universal Synesthesia: A Deep Dive into Conceptual Depths Where Mind and Matter Become Indistinguishable.

By Jorge Sosa

The hard problem of consciousness is easily one of the most fascinating and enigmatic problems humanity has devised. A close tie would be the question regarding whether or not it is possible to conceive of a physical theory of everything. Do the machinations of mind have any real objective significance? Does physical reality truly abide by a set of knowable fundamental principles? This book, along with its many referential sources, attempts to answer these questions by viewing them through the lens of varying fields spanning from Theoretical Physics and Cognitive Science, to Buddhism and the Hermetica. It explores the relationships between qualitative and quantitative phenomena and exposes an underlying symmetry, that symmetry of which serves to combine the two paramount questions into one philosophical query. In short, this is an attempt at a first principles theory of mind, matter, and existence as a whole. One that synthesizes reductionist logic and holistic understandings into one ontological perspective. Our entire universe is in a state of synesthesia, and the subjective faculties of cognition are key components in the creation of a complete picture of objective reality.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse
• Release date: Mar 5, 2021
• ISBN: 9781665514927

Jorge Sosa

Jorge Sosa is a 20 year old undergraduate student at the University of Calgary studying a major in Computational Applied Mathematics and a minor in Philosopy. His affinity for the perpetual aquisition of knowledge through varying means has resulted in a strong contextual background in fields like digital philosophy and physics, core mathematics, logic, cognitive science, and esotericism. He has spent the last four years investing in amateur research via books, online courses, and in person seminars/lectures.

Book preview

© 2021 Jorge Sosa. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse   03/05/2021

ISBN: 978-1-6655-1485-9 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-6655-1492-7 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2021901296

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in

this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views

expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the

views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Preface

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1:   What is Subjectivity?

•   The Evolving Nature of Subjectivity

•   The Fabrication of Identity

•   Awareness of Awareness

•   The Power of Perception

•   Stoicism and Greek Philosophy

•   Buddhism and Its Implications on The Nature of Subjectivity

•   A Personal Truth, or An Illusion?

Chapter 2:   The Objectification of Subjectivity

•   Arguments for Free Will

•   Arguments for Determinism

•   Is There A Compromise?

•   Reductive Physicalism

•   Dualism

•   Panpsychism

•   The Compromise

•   Jungian Archetypes

•   Omnijectivity

Chapter 3:   Inner Machinations

•   The Hermetic Principle of Generation

•   Emergence Theory as Applied to Digital Physics

•   Simulation Theory

•   Recursion Revisited

•   Conservation and Contextuality

•   Implicate Implications

Chapter 4:   Resonance

•   The Hermetic Principles of Vibration and Rhythm and Other Esoteric Interpretations of Frequency

•   The Informative Wave

•   A Universal Symphony

•   Are We The Orchestrators?

•   Densities and Layers

•   OM

Chapter 5:   Retrocausality

•   Cyclic Cosmology

•   Inflationary Cosmology

•   The Palindromic Universe

•   The Conservation of Information

•   Reconciling The Paradox

•   A Contradictory Correspondence

Chapter 6:   The Perfect Imperfection

•   Absolutism vs Relativism

•   The Second Compromise

•   R.A In The Real

•   Commonalities and Implications

Chapter 7:   We Are Order

•   Semantics and Syntax

•   Language of Thought

•   Emergentism

•   Quantum Consciousness

•   Here We Go Again

•   A Cognitive Construct

•   From Syntax To Silicon

•   A Magic Model

•   Back To The Roots

•   The Code Theoretic Axiom: The Third Ontology

•   The Source Shapes

•   A Mathematical Mosaic

•   The Big Picture

•   Crystalline Creation

•   Parallelism

Chapter 8:   The Defining Purpose

•   The Power of Prediction

•   The Unpredictability of Prediction

•   Integration of The In-Between

•   Ego and The External

•   The Human Art of Arbitrariness

•   Back To The Big Picture

•   The Law of Time and Chaos

•   The Power of The Person

Chapter 9:   Enter, The Esoteric

•   The Mind

•   The Matter

•   The Colliding of Hemispheres

•   Inherited Intuition

•   The Missing Meta-principle

•   Reality’s Defining Refinement Algorithm

To the uncle I was named after,

Even though I have never had the privilege to hear you speak or see you smile,

You have changed and inspired my life more than anyone I know.

00.png

Preface

I’d like to begin this book with a brief introduction on who I am and what I’m about. Funnily enough, I began writing this preface only after I had completed the rest of the book. When I started writing this I was 18 years old, I am 20 now, the time taken to write this book may or may not be a testament to procrastinative tendencies but nevermind that.

It has been a long and fruitful journey. And it all started with an almost unbearably heavy sense of fascination with reality and mind. Ever since I was very young I had the qualities of an overthinker, it was only after a series of successive life changing events that I began to realize that my propensity to overthink could be a useful quality in potentially professional endeavours. When I turned sixteen I made it a regular habit to read every day. Every book I have read since then has been a non-fiction book about either science or philosophy. It is the wealth of knowledge that I acquired during those 4 years that has equipped me with the tools to organize my thoughts into this book before you. This accumulation of knowledge has resulted in an even greater desire to accumulate more, and it is because of that that I believe this book will be the first of many I write.

I write this preface and this book with hopes of inspiring a sense of self-proposed purpose to those who have succumbed to the belief that there is no more room for growth. I believe in a reality that is not accidental and is as significant as you make it. This platitude to me is more than a matter of faith and passion, it is a legitimate and scientific truth. The bounds of our civilization are set by the beliefs of the people who comprise said civilization. And I think it is our destiny as a species to collectively self-actualize into the next stage of evolution. This step does not necessitate a blind belief in esotericism or mysticism of any sort, it simply demands that we look beyond ourselves and start to really fathom what we’re dealing with here. Our species is on an exponential trajectory in terms of technological and intellectual progress, and soon enough we will see a change of greater proportion than any change humanity has ever experienced. It is because of this imminent explosion of advancement and capacity that we must begin to think bigger.

This admittedly optimistic philosophy of a golden age of technology and knowledge is what fundamentally drives me. What has emerged as a result of this belief and the inspiration it instills within me is an affinity for the sciences, maths and philosophies of life. Particularly fields like artificial intelligence, theoretical physics, logic, pure mathematics, esotericism, and metaphysics. A complete picture is not complete without the inclusion of every angle of perception. To truly even begin creating a legitimate theory of everything that can facilitate this progression towards a collective greatness we must dissolve the dogma that contaminates practically every field of study. Unfortunately, we live in a world where many explorers of the unknown are constrained by their own desire for professional acknowledgement and reputation. What is supposed to be a fascinating pursuit of truth is slowly turning into a game of who has gained the most clout.

Given that, there is a noticeable change going on in academia and the sciences. What used to be disregarded as hogwash and hoopla is now being seriously considered. I am referring to topics like simulation theory, consciousness being an active physical variable, and monistic idealistic ontologies. All of these previously considered fringe topics will be explored in great detail within the book. Nevertheless, I make an effort to maintain a non anthropocentric worldview. Fundamentally, this book relies on one sole axiom. Everything we see before us, from rocks and rivers to our own cognitive faculties, is an emergent expression of nature itself. When I attempt to redefine consciousness as an objective reality I am really broadening the current definition to being descriptive of an underlying systemic dynamic of nature that is fundamentally within the form of digital information. But more on that later.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with my contentions, I hope that these writings serve to open up your perspective to new conceptual depths that transcend the conventional structures of understanding.

Quick Note on The Cover

Before we enter into the acknowledgements section I’d like to give a special thanks to my illustrator and good friend Jordan Hallet for providing me with what I would regard as the perfect cover for this book. I will leave the interpretation of what it is supposed to symbolize up to you, the reader. By the end of this book it should become easily apparent as to what specific themes it is a visual representation of.

Acknowledgements

I have always considered myself to be a curious person. Even in the early days of my childhood I yearned to focus on what I considered to be the most important and most significant thing in this world. Like many other kids, I dreamt of travelling in the vastness of space and becoming a professional astronaut. At that point in time I considered outer space to be the most significant and all encompassing topic of study, this was self-evidently justifiable. However, as I grew into a teenager and then later into a young man, I started to appreciate the significance of the fundamental tools we use to ponder the unfathomability of the great cosmos, I started to obsess over the origins and nature of consciousness. My journey from outer to inner space could not have happened without the support and wisdom I received from the many great individuals in my life. Before we venture off into my discoveries and interpretations, I would like to give a formal thanks to those who aided in the creation of who I am today, for if not for those people, these words would have never been put on paper.

For the first category of people, I would like to recognize the giants of which whose shoulders I stand on. These are the many writers, philosophers and scientists that have aided in the enhancement of my perception and have provided me with the context to advance my understanding of reality. These people are: Alan Watts, Douglas Hofstadter, Michio Kaku, Carl Sagan, Erwin Schrödinger, Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Carl Jung, Alan Turing, David Goggins, Wim Hof, Elon Musk, Kurt Gödel, Ray Kurzweil, Neils Bohr, David Bohm, Karl Pribram, Nick Bostrom, Terrence Mckenna, James Gates, Jordan Peterson, Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, Lee Smolin, Robert Alpert (Baba ram dass), Lao Tzu, and if he truly did exist, Hermes Trismegistus.

As for my family, I would like to acknowledge: My loving parents, Martha Baron and Carlos Sosa, my older siblings, Kristal Sosa, Thamara Conesa, Carlos-Eduardo Sosa, Gian Sosa, Adriana Conesa and Sydney Sosa, my nephew, Isaiah Conesa, my grandparents Ana Carmona, Augustin Baron, Anibal Sosa, Lesbia Sosa, my extended family (family friends inclusive) and in-law families, these of which include the Sosa’s, Conesa’s, Carmona’s, Mentele’s, Merlihan’s, Zavarces’, Baron’s, Ximenes’, Diaz’s, Ponchez’s, Kellner’s, Sejdini’s, Vader’s, Kovacs’ and the Corsino’s.

I would also like to acknowledge my supportive girlfriend Carla Kovacs, and my friends who have and continue to encourage me to keep doing what I do, Justin Corsino, Domingo Chavez, Greg Merlihan, Ben Anderson, Tommy Rotandaro, McDannel Hernandez, Wang Sadowick, Jordan Hallet, Joseph Beloso, Rylee Peet, Matthew Warner, Okello Luri, Conner Vader, Giles Dejong, Chris Han, Troy Vader, Jordan Richard Shelton, A.J Malimban, Charles Ouano, Thomas Garner, Kyle Smith, Brian Ximenes, Johnny Sejdini, Rachel Burns, Dawsen Stewart, Connie Carolan, Ryan McHale, Gandhi Manzano, and Jane Tkachuk,

Lastly, I would like to acknowledge the support of those who are no longer with us. I thank Quinn Whittingham, Brianna Fulton, Laura-Lynn Richard and my uncle, Jorge Sosa for the positive impact they had on my life and the lives of those around them.

Introduction

To understand anything about the thematic essence of this book the titular term synesthesia must be clearly defined. Synesthesia is a neurological condition that affects just a mere four percent of the population, the experiencers (definitely not sufferers) of this condition experience a world of tasty colours and aromatic symphonies. The senses of an individual essentially have their wires crossed, one may claim to see sound or feel colour. There can be one or several pairs of senses that have been coupled together, to most people the knowledge of this condition induces an odd sense of familiarity. Every human being has synesthesia to a degree, at least in the conceptual sense. We may not all hear colours but we all understand what a metaphor is, symbolizing one concept with another is not a new concept in itself. Social constructs and the social dynamic of society as a whole is structured with metaphorical information, without symbolism cognition is non existent, and collectivized information is not communicative.

For example, could you imagine a world in which every driver intuitively associated a street light or sign with whatever meaning came to mind? Although this concept seems far from fiction at times, a world where literally no one has any degree of semantic consensus is a chaotic one to say the least. A red light could mean that the Toronto raptors just won to one person while the other saw it as a sign from god, we all need to have agreements for what means what in order to have a functional society and life overall. Analogies allow us to comprehend otherwise foreign entities, or at least allow us to categorize them. Having full fledged synesthesia seems more like a superpower than a disorder, people with diagnosed synesthesia generally have higher IQ’s, better memories and more creative tendencies. This is mostly due to the hyper-organizational dynamic of thought that a synesthete experiences. Everything is associated with several symbols that pervade the entire sensory experience. Every number might have an assigned colour, every pitch might have a corresponding shape or form, the possibilities are endless with these people. This abstract association of symbols to non-arbitrary concepts enables one to immediately recognize or recollect certain events and objects because of the multitude of giveaways there are. When trying to remember a mathematical formula a synesthete may associate spatial and geometric patterns to a certain arithmetical abstraction. So rather than thinking purely in numerical terms, some synesthetes reduce complex logical problems into analogical models. Problems of a high order of intricacy can be reduced to a simplistic game of patterns when thinking synesthetically.

It is self-evident that a great deal of visualization goes into thinking synesthetically, symbolic representations of external and internal stimuli are consistently conjured up in the mind’s eye of a synesthete. The right brain is hard at work, it is recognized as one of two hemispheres in the human brain that run the show. There is a dichotomous process of pattern recognition and expression that we all experience, there is the left brain that is attributed to systematic and analytical thinking faculties, and there is the right brain that processes information in intuitive and artistic ways, it is sometimes attributed closely to the unconscious mind. But hold on, there are many popularized misinterpretations regarding the contrast between the functions of these two hemispheres. Creating a painting of a cube may involve both halves of the brain, the careful geometric alignment of the cube would be controlled by the left brain while the vibrant blends of colours used to emphasize the cube’s three dimensionality would be the right brain’s job. Grammatical structure and general syntax is processed by the left brain while the right focuses on semantics and expression. The difference between the right and left hemisphere is, in my opinion, best defined through reductionist versus holistic interpretations.

Interpreting an experience reductionistically would mean that you are paying attention to the very small, fine details of a concept. Said concept is reductionalistically understood through analyzing its constituents. When thinking holistically we tend to focus on the bigger picture, instead of dabbling on gears and cogs the whole machine is interpreted as one grandiose entity with a defining purpose. Both of these polar cognitive processes are integral to a functioning mind. Although, it seems that reductionist analysis is favoured in our modern society. Scientists of all fields analyze their data and draw conclusions upon purely reductionist approaches, half of the picture is missing. This current scientific paradigm stems from an understandable rejection of the holistic conceptualizations that are often affiliated with mysticism, spirituality and pseudoscience, or in other words, theories that cannot be tested through empirical methodologies. Since the right brain or unconscious mind is usually attributed to risk taking behaviour, unexplained territory and negative emotion, most people instinctively try to avoid activating these mental faculties. Even though the heavy level of abstraction and ambiguity that comes with right brain cognition can be seen as unnerving and useless when it comes to analytical research, it can prove to be a critical part of not only the empirical process, but the scientific method as a whole.

Intuition is generally a right brain function, yet it seems to have been an important ability in the minds of several notable people who are known for having changed the scientific and technological paradigm, and hence the world itself. It is known that several visionaries like Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Steve jobs and many others have attested to the sheer power of intuition. They explain how their world changing inventions, discoveries and theories came to them in an unexpected instant. One of the most remarkable quotes from the genius inventor Nikola Tesla that is pertinent to this phenomenon is My brain is only a receiver, In the Universe there is a core from which we obtain knowledge, strength, inspiration. I have not penetrated into the secrets of this core, but I know it exists.. It’s almost as if the revolutionary ideas that caused paradigm shifts were received and not conceptualized by the people who conceived of them. So, is intuition a sensory experience that we have not defined? Or is it the result of unconscious processing rapidly calculating and reasoning in the background of the mind? Right brain cognition is known to be much quicker in relation to the conscious thinking of the left brain so the second option does seem to be more plausible at face value. We will explore this philosophical question in extreme depth later on. Nevertheless, it seems as if intuition is a potentially very practical aspect of the cognitive process.

The mystification of higher forms of intuition has led many Western intellectuals to believe that logic and conscious reasoning is superior to the subconscious and more qualitative operations of mind. But even in a purely secularized sense there is evidence of intuition and right brain thinking being cognitively superior to conscious reasoning in many ways. I personally believe that the mystery of intuition can be rationalized and proven to be fundamentally based on a formal system of logic and arithmetic. However, that is not to say that logic itself is the quintessential form of the truth we are trying to convey, but more on that later. The subjective experience, theoretic information, metaphorical allegories and general symbolism may be more tangible in the physical world than most care to realize. This is where synesthesia comes in, the high level abstractions of the mind can have very practical applications in reality, although as a society we tend to draw a very thick line between imagination and the real world. If intuition is indeed a para-sensory experience wouldn’t it be possible that it could be coupled with one or more of the five primary senses? For instance, mathematics was created by ancient peoples who intuitively visualized how one could quantify the physical dimensions, structures and dynamics of the external environment that they sensed around them while creating specific notations that act as correspondents to particular patterns perceived everywhere. As humans evolved, math did too, and mathematicians would formulate conjectures that were seemingly so far off from real world physics that they were immediately deemed worthless. But time and time again we found that some complex conceptualizations like these were found to be applicable as we came to understand more and more about the physical world around us. It is time that the scientific notions of coincidence and randomness that pervade virtually every scientific field out there are challenged, for it appears that there is something palpable about the mind, and that what we consider random might actually be an incredibly intricate pattern that we cannot currently conceive of.

Could it be that our perception, cognition and general comprehension of the physical world is entangled with the supposedly algorithmic nature of the core that Tesla was referring to? In other words, does consciousness and matter run on the same program in our simulation like reality? What we see, hear, smell, taste and feel in our world might just be a reflection of our own emotional perception of reality. Almost as if we are literally living in our own mind.

Sociology, anthropology, psychology, linguistics, arts and philosophy are isomorphically related to fields like computer science, physics, biology, and material sciences. Yet we differentiate these two groups into categories like abstract human conceptualizations and analytical fields of research. Nothing externalized by human beings is black and white, there are obviously aspects of both theory and application in each of these respective fields but there is a deep underlying isomorphism that we fail to notice, it all roots down to the illusion of separateness. Within this notion of reality, the cognitive and material sciences are one in the same. A very simple example of this congruence is the notion of positive and negative charges in physics, it is isomorphic to the human perception of polarity. Have you ever noticed that anything and everything comes in twos? We have good and bad, nothing and something, one or zero, real or fake, and so on. Nothing can be understood without its opposite, is this logical inference tangible in the real world? If you take a look at the fundamentals of electromagnetism it just might be. The stability of the fabric of spacetime relies on the relationship between sub-microscopic positive and negative forces. We are built on the same foundation of information that the entire universe is built on, the brains that we use to compute thoughts are adherent to the same physical laws and rules that everything else in existence abides by. So it would make sense to suggest that the thoughts supposedly generated by these complex organic machines follow the same rules of arithmetic in a more abstract and obscure way.

The hypothetical program that perpetuated reality into existence didn’t just create matter, through causal relation it created consciousness and all of the high level abstractions like love and hate that accompany it. There is a universal synesthesia enveloping all of existence, everything from our thoughts to the ground beneath our feet is a unique representation and interpretation of the same thing. When we excessively reduce the finer details into eclectic categories and hierarchies we lose sense of the holistic side of perception. The plasma physicist, philosopher and a notable reference David Bohm once said; Individuality is only possible if it unfolds from wholeness.. To even get close to ever fully understanding the world we need to revert back to conceiving of the environment as a unified and relational system. New developments in multiple fields of science continue to demonstrate that what we thought was an individuated and closed system is actually better understood through the unification of the entire, interrelated system being observed. Relativistic principles always bring about new potential answers in otherwise hopeless situations.

Even though throughout this book I am actively promoting a more progressive and volatile perspective on the true nature of reality, I do believe that there is a concrete logic based architecture to our universe, there are broad parameters that everything adheres to. These basic laws of existence are permeated beyond just the physicality of the world we experience, they are metaphysical, non physical and physical in nature. The all encompassing rules to reality I am alluding to are expressed in this book primarily through the reference of the seven hermetic principles. They are basic tenets of Hermetic philosophy as interpreted by the famous esoteric book published in 1908, The Kybalion. It was authored by unknown individuals that referred to themselves as the three initiates. The Hermetica, a fancy name for the Hermetic texts and teachings, was developed by Hermes Trismegistus. Hermes was an ancient archetypal character (or person, we really don’t know) who was deified as a god in Egyptian, Roman and Greek mythologys. There are thousands of writings from this alleged demigod like figure, writings that have paved the way for a large amount of esoteric works, teachings and societies. This knowledge is what the mystery schools and ancient orders of knights, monarchs, class elites and wise men consider to be forbidden and of a divine substance. The seven principles are the principle of mentalism, the principle of correspondence, the principle of vibration, the principle of polarity, the principle of rhythm, the principle of cause and effect and the principle of gender. All of these will be explained and explored thoroughly through comparative analysis. As we will see, the implications for these behaviours of reality are huge and can be observed in any known process, even those of which are not conventionally observable.

The pervasive nature of these principles and rules is more clearly defined through a Platonic context. Platonism is a metaphysical philosophy first developed by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato himself, it is a direct challenge to relativism and takes the notion of objectivity to a whole other level. Plato termed the phrase forms to describe absolute (unchanging) realities that are both the literal cause and source of meaning in the world. Forms that are physically tangible in metaphysical dimensions beyond our own. These forms can be attributed to the hermetic principles in a lot of ways, although another helpful term to consider is the qualia. Qualia defines the non objectifiable experiences affiliated with subjective perception. It is often correlated with the emotional and intuitive faculties of the human mind. Everyone experiences their own unique forms of qualia, but Plato is suggesting that just as with physical reality, there is an everlasting foundation of meaning that everything is built on. Even though there are obvious differences between people, we are rooted in the same existential soil. It all goes back to the belief that everyone and everything is a distinct expression of the same cosmic code, our qualitative experiences may be distinct but there is a singular source of qualia. In this book I am going to attempt to unite the contradictory philosophies of relativism and platonism (akin to absolutism) by using real world examples to demonstrate the key differences and relationships between the two. Existence is evidently a self-contradictory mess, but let us not succumb to the appeal of absurdism or nihilism. We must persevere in our collective pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, as the astrophysicist and modern day science icon Neil Degrasse Tyson once said, The universe is under no obligation to make sense to us., it is our job to at least try to make sense of who and what we really are.

Chapter 1

What is Subjectivity?

What is subjectivity? It is the belief that every individual’s experience of the world is a distorted version of objective reality due to the unique perception of said individual. Consciousness itself cannot exist without the limited and distinctive qualities of mind that differ from being to being, an entirely objective experience of the world would entail a sort of omniscience that couldn’t ever really be classified as a genuine conscious experience because of the lack of a self-referential ego. Some argue that subjectivity is purely contextual, meaning that the prominent reason we all experience a somewhat different reality is due to personal upbringing and environmental factors. That’s to say that we are all born with no preconceived notions about the nature of our existence until our gullible little minds absorb them. Most everything is directly taught and learned by authoritative figures like teachers and parents during development. Still, a great deal of innate knowledge seems to pervade the conventional notions of the learning process, and we are certainly not born as objective analyzers, multiple potential factors are responsible for the distinguishing characteristics of each and every person. We are all born without the logical real versus fake distinguishing abilities that are cultivated early in youth. Eventually, most everyone conforms to an unspoken sense of realism that comes with fully developed cognitive faculties. There are some pretty decent definitions for subjectivity in our academic arsenal, but our civilization has yet to concretely establish the degree to which our subjective experiences differ from one another. It is reasonably evident that emotional perception is radically variant from person to person; what makes one person filled with joy may make someone else want to commit murder. Contextuality provides a pretty stable foundation of reasoning for this emotional contrast. If one was raised in a conservative household, they might not be so joyous in regards to the instantiating of welfare checks as the liberal next door might be. But when it comes to actual sensory experience, disagreements on what was generally experienced may perplex people into a haze of disgruntled confusion. In reality, we don’t really know if we see and feel the same world around us. For all we know, someone else can be experiencing something completely alien to our understanding. The only irrefutable common ground we share is the semantics and code to our everyday reality. A famous example is the ambiguity regarding the collective perception of colour. For instance, when two people see a shade of magenta one might see it as what the other person would perceive to be navy blue, but yet they both still label it as magenta nonetheless. As mentioned before, a semantic consensus is the key to understanding each other and the world in a collective sense. The exact degrees of variance between differing subjective experiences will be further defined as we progress; for now, we will focus on the fundamental nature of the personalized experience we call subjectivity.

The Evolving Nature of Subjectivity

Subjectivity is a dynamic, evolving phenomenon, personal beliefs, values and truths are anything but written in stone. Although, it is unnervingly difficult to reprogram one’s current mental model of perception and interpretation. All of us suffer from the psychological condition known as cognitive dissonance to an extent. Cognitive dissonance is defined as a state of holding contradictory beliefs and values within one’s mind. Just as the external natural world does, our minds have a propensity to strive to achieve harmonious states, unlike the ones induced by cognitive dissonance. Unfortunately, most never achieve such cognitive coherence and inner peace, meaning that the majority of us spend our entire lives changing and refining our belief systems behind the scenes, this human plight has been attempted to resolve through various methods. The most common being adopting a religious, political or philosophical belief system, In doing so, a sturdy foundation of existential reasoning is provided to an individual rather than said individual actually having to go through the arduous and frankly endless process of building their own. This convenience has resulted in the formation of multitudinous dogmas and collective belief structures. However, some philosophies encourage a non-static mindset. Various branches of Buddhism and other forms of Eastern esotericism often refer to samsara, which directly translates to ‘incessantly in motion’. The Buddha, Siddartha Gautama, taught that all compounded things are all impermanent and that the root of our suffering stems from the attachment to the temporary. I don’t think that this would exclude personal conceptions and thoughts we have ingrained in our minds.

Subjectivity is realized as a dynamic process in these philosophies and is compared to the ever-changing nature of nature itself. There is a near-infinite amount of variables that contribute to the cultivation of one’s current subjective state of mind. General upbringing, psychological trauma, environmental factors and genetics can all play a part in the configuration of a unique personality. It is generally the negative experiences that shock the mind enough to reshape it drastically. We are all built on our trauma, and personalities can be finely distinguished through varying insecurities, fears and inhibitions. That’s not to say that our tribulations mould the entirety of our psyche, but a great deal of it appears to be influenced by negative experiences. There is an inner conflict within everyone that is metaphorical to any intelligent civilization’s defining purpose. There is an unconscious human inclination to solidify one’s own belief structure and to make it impenetrable to the forces of dynamism and change. This is one why the counterintuitive teachings of the Buddha seem so enigmatic to western thinkers. On a societal scale, the collective purpose of humanity (and presumably other intelligent civilizations) is to create order from the increasing disorder around us. As the planet and entire universe decay, we work rigorously to advance technology, formulate logical hypotheses that will aid in our understanding, and prolong the human race’s potential longevity as a species. It is the archetypal race against time in which something impermanent is continuously being perfected and refined into an immortalized version of itself. Our individual psyches are going through the same process that our entire civilization is going through.

Instead of focusing so hard on preservation and perfection, we must embrace the reality of dynamism and take pride in our versatility. To learn how to do this, all we’d have to do is introspect and observe. We are literally hardwired to change constantly. As we age, the replication of cells becomes less and less effective, and noticeable deviations in our physiology begin to take place. Although this is a notable process of change within our physical selves, I’d like to focus on the continual changes in an organ directly correlated to consciousness (because we are still referring to the process of subjectivity here). Neuroplasticity is a relatively newly discovered biological occurrence that is still currently reshaping (pun definitely intended) our neurological paradigm. This process describes how the actual physical structure of our brain changes on a regular basis, and that our new experiences and perceptions are inducing this physical change. The physical orientation of our neural pathways could be like a blueprint to our personality and has been considered as such by many researchers. A stronger more concentrated series of connections in one local of the brain associated with a particular function or skill could hold so many implications in regards to the specific habits and repetitive thought processes of an individual.

The ever-changing process of subjective experience is not only software based, our hardware (brain) is changing along with our belief structures. The only way to learn is to improve and go with the flow, as the popular Chinese martial artist and actor, Bruce Lee, once said, be water. Whatever container you’re in, take the shape of it, because it is very clear that trying to remain the same stagnant person is contradictory to our true nature. It is terribly ironic how mainstream science previously dictated that the brain and hence mind became a fixed, and static entity once a child was fully developed, the neuroplastic thinking faculties of the scientists who initially made this claim certainly helped them to contradict themselves in the end. This is a testament to how rigidity in science has and is holding us back from obtaining higher knowledge. Even though the brain itself is now recognized as a physical process in itself, we know that any significant change takes a lot of time and repetition of brain reshaping behaviours. Analogously, the tweaking of a subjective perception of life is a very gradual process. As mentioned before, humans tend to try to stick to familiarity and are hesitant to change their perception of the world. It doesn’t help that we are hardwired to change slowly, I wouldn’t consider this a weakness though, there is no coherence if something changes too rapidly.

Imagine being a person with a brain that was radically altering its physical topology; this person would have a new personality every couple of seconds. There would be no consistency without a steady pace