If you’ve ever worked with augmented reality technology, you know that the things you see in this space are added information and images to what your eyes naturally see. If you haven’t worked with this technology, imagine a camera: when you look through the viewfinder at the scene in front of you, you can see additional information like light levels and measurements. Most digital cameras have this capability. This additional information is augmented reality; it doesn’t exist naturally and is visible only when viewed through these tools. What we call reality is quite similar, as we perceive the world through our human tools. If we could look at the world from the perspective of an ant, a bat, or a whale—creatures not that genetically distant from us—we would experience a completely different reality. Understanding this seemingly simple point—that we experience the world from a human perspective and that reality isn’t necessarily as we perceive it—is vital. The perception of reality differs not only between different beings but also from one human to another.
Based on what I explained earlier about mental space, mental context, and personality, we can say that what each person experiences is influenced by numerous complex factors, which can affect our understanding of reality. In other words, differences not only between different animal species but also within a single species like humans result in varied perceptions of the world due to complex, multi-dimensional differences. It’s essential to remember that what we call reality is a set of sensory inputs received by our sensory organs and processed by the brain. Thus, each individual experiences the universe within their own mental space, influenced by the unique context explained in the previous chapter.
Language, which we use as a means of communicating our experiences, functions as a pointer. In other words, through language, you point to an experience, and another person processes and understands that experience based on their own experiences. For example, if I talk to you about the wonderful taste of a new Peruvian chocolate I discovered, your brain will process the word “chocolate” to understand what I’m describing. If you’ve never tasted chocolate, language will be insufficient to convey what I’m describing, so I might have to generously send you a piece of my precious chocolate for you to understand what I’m talking about. Even if you’ve never tried Peruvian chocolate, your brain will likely offer an understanding based on your previous experiences with chocolate. Now, imagine a 5-year-old child whose parents, trying to prevent a sugar addiction, have only given them dark chocolate. Hearing the word “chocolate,” the child’s face might scrunch up slightly, showing little interest in what I’m saying (unless this child also enjoys bitter flavors, like me). Conversely, another child who has grown up with sweet, buttery Swiss and Belgian chocolates might start drooling at my descriptions. This simple example shows how each of us has a different understanding of what we call reality. Now, imagine this is true for every single thing you experience throughout the day. If you think carefully about what I’ve explained, you’ll realize that the fact that we speak to each other and understand each other is almost miraculous.
If you’re finding it difficult to grasp what I’ve explained, it might be because thoughts of chocolate have distracted you. I suggest you take a moment to visit where you hide your chocolates before continuing.
Whether I am “what exists in the world” or “the world is within me” depends entirely on the angle and distance from which you view this and how you define both myself and the world.
In the first chapter, I discussed first-hand and second-hand knowledge and briefly explained that what I termed second-hand knowledge actually falls within first-hand knowledge. In other words, any information that enters our mind as content from the outside through sensory input appears against the backdrop of our mental context and is processed by our mind. Therefore, what we call second-hand knowledge also appears within our mental space. For example, when you’re reading or listening to this, the content is appearing in your mental space. It is true that this is second-hand knowledge being transferred from my mind to yours, but what you understand from it, like your understanding of the taste of chocolate, depends entirely on your context.
In the book “The Secret of Unity,” which I wrote and published before this one, I introduced a concept called “zero distance,” which refers to the idea that every being can observe the world from its own zero distance, and no one else can experience the world from another’s zero distance. The taste of chocolate from my zero distance is different from the taste of chocolate from your zero distance. Yet, we discuss the taste of chocolate daily without realizing that we are talking about two completely different things with the same name.
The theme of the science fiction book “The Secret of Unity” was precisely this: if we could, through a scientific breakthrough, get so close to something that there would be no distance between the two, we would be able to experience reality from that zero distance. While this idea is best left in the realm of science fiction, it can help us understand that what we call reality isn’t a singular entity and isn’t necessarily what I’m experiencing.
This concept intrigued the editor of that book so much that they insisted on changing the title from “The Secret of Unity” to “Reality from Zero Distance.”
In the neighborhood where I live, a few of us locals host weekly poetry nights, and after reading our poems, we discuss our interpretations of them. A while ago, I read a poem by Rumi, as usual, and tried to interpret it:
“There is nothing outside of yourself, look within. Everything you want is there. You are That.”
My Irish neighbor then read a poem by Fernando Pessoa, the famous Portuguese poet and writer, which I felt referred to the existence of humans in the world. A discussion soon arose between two other participants about whether our bodies are inside our minds or our minds are inside our bodies.
I watched this heated debate for a few minutes as both individuals passionately defended their ideas, each trying to convince the other that they were right. A smile crossed my face because they were both right.
As I explained at the beginning, the angle of view is crucial in philosophical discussions. The angle from which you look at a subject changes the definitions to the extent that two different answers can be given to what appears to be a simple question.
If you look at a human from a third-person perspective, all you see is an experience machine—a body dynamically interacting with its surroundings. A being that exists in the world, and naturally, its mind is within this body—a body that encompasses its entirety. However, this is only true from a specific distance where the third person is currently observing. If the third person gets very close to this individual, the perception changes, potentially shifting from social sciences, psychology, and human sciences to the domain of medical science. If the third person distances themselves and views this individual from beyond the borders, they see this person within a collective of humans interacting with each other, assigning them a nationality label, and studying them as a singular entity within fields like political science, cultural studies, and social sciences.
This is why the behavior of an individual on the global stage can represent a nation, and conversely, the behavior of a country can impact an individual’s identity. We judge various nations based on our experiences, observations, and what we have heard about them.
My perception of the people of Portugal before and after living in this country is entirely different and constantly evolving. This is because I observe humans labeled as “Portuguese” from a third-person perspective at varying distances.
However, if we look at the entire issue from a first-person perspective, the answer will be completely different. According to what I described about mental space and the nature of the mind, your body is within your mind. What you experience of your body is a combination of visual images of parts of your body, the sensation of having a body, the sense of touch, and the ability to move parts of it—all experienced within your mental space. Therefore, the answer is entirely the opposite.
If a human is viewed from a third-person perspective at a specific distance, their mind is within their body, and they are a being in the world. If viewed from afar, the person is not only a mind within a body but also a part of a larger mind. If viewed from a first-person perspective, everything—the entire world—is within their mind.
