Can You Trust Reality? | Unveiled

<h4>

Can You Trust Reality?</h4>

So, how much of this world do you think is genuine? Are there parts of your life that sometimes feel not quite right? Over the years, across centuries of thought, debate, false dawns and seeming breakthroughs, the world’s greatest minds have been bent toward answering life’s biggest questions such as these. So much so, we now have a range of philosophies that offer up answers. Which do you think is the one that truly gets to the heart of the matter?

This is Unveiled, and today we’re answering the extraordinary question; can you trust reality?

Broadly, we know that reality - that which we perceive as the tangible and unquestionable fabric of our existence - can be a disconcerting concept when examined closely. Even the act of questioning the nature of stuff can evoke a sense of unease in many, tapping into primal fears around a loss of control and unsettling the foundations upon which we usually live. Here, we’re going to take a closer look at the real world approaches that could offer some solutions. Traveling the realms of philosophy, probing the intricacies of the mind-body problem, and pitching it all alongside the notion that there’s probably more we don’t know, than do.

First off, why is it so discomforting to question what’s real, anyway? The fear of the unknown, coupled with existential dread, can trigger a variety of phobias such as basophobia (the fear of falling) agoraphobia (the fear of open spaces) or, more specifically, solipsism syndrome (the fear of the external world being an illusion). All underscore the profound impact that our perceptions have on our psychological well-being. That word, perception, is going to be key. But, clearly, whenever we do cast our lives into doubt, we should also ensure that we never dwell for too long. That said, thinking about thinking is also pretty fun.

So, let’s kick off with idealism. It posits that reality is fundamentally mental or immaterial. In this worldview, everything exists within the mind or consciousness. The idealist enigma is wrapped up in a famous philosophical problem; if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does that tree make a sound? While some say yes, others say no… because sound, like all perceptions, is dependent on an observer. Real only happens when we perceive it; a mantra that might also be applied to Schrödinger's cat.

On the other side of the coin, materialism asserts another reality; one that’s entirely composed of physical matter. Materialists discount the existence of any non-material or supernatural entities. Probably the most well known encapsulation of this perspective comes from the astrophysicist, Carl Sagan. He famously said that; “The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff”, fully emphasizing the interconnectedness of all physical matter. For materialists, it’s probably true that if the tree falls it does make a sound, regardless of who is (or isn’t) there.

There are a range of mid-points between idealism and materialism, though. Dualism separates reality into two distinct substances, usually mind and matter. The mind-body problem - largely born out of the dualist POV - explores the relationship between the mental and physical aspects of existence. In some ways it’s a much more complex depiction of what’s really real, and therefore it leaves a lot more room for interpretation. However, the seeming split does at least mean dualists are confident that their own thoughts are to be trusted. René Descartes is the influential voice here. As a key figure in the Enlightenment, he wrote "Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), a line now widely used to highlight the certainty of mental existence, if nothing else.

With all of this in mind, then, the question remains; can you trust reality? In a world where the simulation hypothesis suggests that our entire existence might be a complex computer generated construct… and where multiverse theories propose the coexistence of infinite realities and timelines… it’s sure difficult to be certain these days. But this uncertainty ultimately boils down to the nature of perception. The fact is that our perception of reality is inevitably, inescapably, inherently subjective. It’s wholly shaped by sensory input and cognitive processes, which means that no-one’s perception is the same as anyone else’s. On a small scale, it means that no two people will watch this video in quite the same way, or taste a cake, or listen to a piece of music. But, on larger scales, it means that no two people comprehend life in quite the same way, visualize existence, or appreciate the universe. In general, sensory experiences are a pretty fragile foundation for truth… but they’re also all we have.

If even our senses are sketchy and up for interpretation, then is there anything else we could look to for a firmer understanding? Ultimately, no there isn’t. Aside from our senses, our memories are probably the most important sources we have to shape our understanding of what’s real. The certainty of memory, however, is famously fallible.

In 1974, a key study into eyewitness testimony and leading questions was carried out by the psychologists Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer. In it, participants watched a video of a car accident and were then asked about the speed of the cars using different forms of a question. Some were questioned using the word "smashed”, while others were asked using words like "hit" or "contacted”. Results showed that the choice of words significantly influenced participants' estimates of the speed of the cars. Those who heard the word "smashed" gave higher speed estimates compared to other groups. Loftus and Palmer had demonstrated how easily memory could become distorted.

Elsewhere, and more than forty years earlier, there was the “War of the Ghosts” study. Conducted by Sir Frederic Bartlett, participants were asked to read and then recall (at different intervals over time) a Native American folk tale called "War of the Ghosts". Results here showed that people tended to distort the story to fit with their existing schemas and cultural expectations - which in themselves may have shifted over time, as well. Information in the story that was inconsistent with a participant’s cultural background was often omitted or changed, showing how memory is clearly reconstructive.

Finally, and in the mid-90s, researchers Henry L. Roediger III and Kathleen McDermott conducted an experiment to show that people can easily remember things that not only happened differently, but in fact never happened at all. In their study, participants were presented with lists of words related to a critical word that actually didn’t appear in the list. For example, they might see the words sleep, rest, dream, etc., while the critical word - i.e. “bed" - is absent. Later, though, around half of the participants falsely remembered or recognized the critical word that was not presented. This revealed that false memories could be made based purely on association, or even a sub-conscious kind of guesswork.

We know, then, that memory can be significantly influenced by external factors. We also know that even the memories that are correct are formed mostly by our sensory experiences, which are entirely subjective to us. Going one step even further, the wider philosophies about thought, reality, memory - about everything - are ultimately subject to the same stumbling blocks. We all hear, interpret and remember them differently. We’re all prone to adjusting them to fit into whatever it is we already know.

With everything considered, it’s perhaps little wonder that many would rather describe their worldview as philosophical skepticism. Philosophical skeptics cast doubt on our ability to know anything with absolute certainty. From Descartes' methodical musings on the nature of the mind… to Loftus and Palmer’s seeming proof that we never remember anything correctly, the conclusion here is that we simply cannot trust our perceptions.

Of all the ideas we’ve covered, which do you most closely associate with? Are you an idealist or a materialist? A dualist or a skeptic? Have you ever remembered something very differently to someone else? Are you happy with your acquired sensory knowledge, or are you suspicious that the things you think you know are wrong? As always, air your views in the comments!

Clearly, it’s a labyrinth, but also it needn’t be a minefield. Whenever we think deeply about who we really are, it can lead to a nasty helping of existential despair. However, if we embrace the uncertainty rather than fear it, then actually it has the potential to be a wondrous journey. Again, thinking about thinking can be fun. As to whether or not you can trust reality, there’s perhaps no conclusive answer. The solution, it seems, is an infinite journey rather than a final destination.