When a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? Whatever the answer may be, it has kept a great number of philosophers and physicists in business for a great while. An Idealist such as George Berkeley might say that unless there is someone there to have the idea of a falling tree, there is no falling tree at all. On the other hand, the classical view of science has been that reality is the universe we observe around us, whether we are there to do so or not. Modern science, however, points toward a more active role played by the observer. Timothy Ferris, author of The Mind's Sky, states that the known universe "exists only so long as there is someone to perceive it"(71). The Grolier electronic encyclopedia defines perception as "the process and experience of gaining sensory information from about the physical world"(Hochberg). But what do we do with that information? Is that information then projected on a great screen within our minds? If so, where are the eyes to view that screen, and the eyes to view the image those eyes create, ad infinitum? Obviously our brains do more than compile information, so how can we assess the validity of what we observe? Rene Descartes judged that he could "take as a general rule that the things we conceive very clearly and very distinctly are all true (Discourse 19)." In spite of that, truth remains elusive. For, as Max Born noted in a letter to Einstein, "Living matter and clarity are opposites(Ferris xi)." It seems that reality is little more than a conglomeration of possibilities until put under the microscope of conscious observation; then, what it becomes is conceptualized through our senses and construed to conform with our paradigms before being presented to our minds as "what's out there."

Thus, until we ask what the world is, it isn't. At least that's one interpretation that can be drawn from physic's current model of the universe: quantum mechanics. Another interpretation could be: until we look for the world, it's everywhere. That may sound enigmatic, but it's not impossible. This is because, according to the quantum theory, all subatomic particles exist also as probability waves that can expand outward to any point in space (Feinberg). In the Copenhagen view of quantum mechanics, "the wave of all probabilities undergoes a sudden change [from probabilistic to exact] the instant anything physical is observed.... The observer is responsible for the collapse of the wave function" (Wolf 53). Therefore, in a very literal sense, perception determines reality. However, our perception is hardly impartial, and a stone we never knew was coming can still land on our heads.

The inescapable interdependence of the mind and universe has been evident to the great thinkers of our world throughout history. Todd Siler expands on that truth when in his book Breaking the Mind Barrier he says,

Or, as Heraclitus succinctly put it, "All things are one" (Ferris 71). The word universe itself comes from the Latin for "all things turned into one" (Ferris 83). Taking this further, George Berkeley states in his Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, that the notion of material substance having existence without the mind is "altogether inconceivable(30)." Berkeley goes on to explain:

So, does this mean that we're actually omnipresent beings, or that the universe is merely a figment of our imagination? Of course not. The point I think they are trying to make is that it's impossible to study any part of the universe without taking into account the fact that we're also a part of that universe. To do so would be like a fish trying to objectively determine what an aquarium is from the the inside with no knowledge of what's outside.

Not only are we a part of our universe(or aquarium), but our minds are also continuously building and rebuilding models of the world around us which we use to conceptualize that universe.

Similarly, Berkeley notes that our concepts of physical properties such as the "green-ness" of an object must be projectable. Our mind must in fact form "an idea of color in abstract which is neither red, nor blue, nor white, nor any other determinate color (Berkeley 10)." It is apparent then, that the world we take for granted around us now, is a the world that we are not born into. Our take on the world must then be fluid and dynamic as our mental constructs evolve. At a very young age we begin to develop our sense of cause and effect. When an infant drops an object, he expects it to fall. When an infant consistently drops his spoon on the floor every time it's handed back to him, he's not being sadistic; he's just experimenting with his model of the universe. According to David Hume, "all our reasonings concerning matter of fact or existence(51)" are founded on concept of cause and effect. Unfortunately, as Hume points out, we can not "point out that circumstance in the cause, which gives it a connexion with its effect(51)." In our understanding of any cause and effect relationship, Hume asserts that though "we could not, at first, infer one event from the other;" we can come about this ability only "after so long a course of uniform experience(52)." Thus, our entire grasp of any cause & effect relationship, which our reasoning of existence is founded upon, is itself rooted in past experience. Therefore, due to our different experiences in life, we each develop different models of reality. In her book Pilgrim at Tinker Creek, Annie Dillard recounts a conflict which arose because of this difference:

Of course, belief structures, or paradigms, can be shared amongst large groups of people. If this weren't the case, a social society would be impossible. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, by T.S. Kuhn, points out that such a revolution, as from Newtonian to Einsteinian physics, involves the rejection of an older paradigm by the scientific community and incorporation of another. "Others who have noted this aspect of scientific advance have emphasized its similarity to a change in visual gestalt: the marks on paper that were first seen as a bird are now seen as an antelope, or vice versa"(Kuhn 85). Kuhn also notes the necessity of circularity within the debate for paradigm adoption. "Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm's defense"(94). Again, this reflects the inability of the mind to objectively define reality without the use of artificial constructs.

Perhaps it was this concept of artificial constructs which Rene Magritte, a surrealist painter and theorist, chose to express in his painting The Human Condition. Within the work, a painting of a strikingly real landscape rests on an easel partially obscuring the view of a window showing the same landscape. Magritte reveled in this idea of the visual paradox. Where does the picture end? John Archibald Wheeler best defined this point of view when he said, "A picture without a frame is not a picture" (Ferris 3). We spend our lives painting a frameless picture with the colors of our senses and call our work "reality."

We paint what we see upon the canvas of our minds. But what do we see? According to T.S. Kuhn, "What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see" (113). This implies that there is something constant for individuals to base their mental paintings of the world upon. The search for that truth has been the embodiment of the lives of monks and other "spiritual specialists" since the dawn of man. Richard Taruskin states that the meditative chants of the Gregorian Monks (or plainsong) "is the closest thing we have in the west to an eternal music" (1). That's not too rough an estimate, considering that plainsong is believed to have been developed several centuries before the birth of Christ. Why would this music exhibit such lasting endurance? Conceivably because its purpose, to facilitate a spiritual quest for truth, has remained an integral constituent of the mind of man.

Cicero, the Roman orator, poet and statesman, observed that "Nature has planted in our minds an insatiable longing to see the truth." Without this curiosity we would live our lives immersed in delusion. Why? Because all models have flaws. As Descartes noted, "the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence not to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once (Meditations 60)." Descartes goes on to point out that "there are no definitive signs to distinguish being awake from being asleep (Meditations 60)." Again, we are faced with the possibility that reality may be no more veridical than a dream. Descartes wonders then, if he is dreaming, what the source might be for the content of his dream. Are they "like painted images, which could only have been produced in the likeness of true things (Meditations 61)?" Descartes considers that though the contents of his dreams may be imaginary, those characteristics from which the contents is constructed may be true. In this same manner he notes that disciplines such as arithmetic, "which treat of nothing but the simplest and most general things and which are indifferent as to whether these things do or do not in fact exist, contain something certain and indubitable(ibid.)." To Descartes, "It does not seem possible that such obvious truths should be subject to the suspicion of being false(ibid.)." But, what of Annie Dillard's "artificial obvious"? If we didn't persistently question and appraise our "artificial obvious," what we see wouldn't necessarily be what we get. The innate craving of the human mind to portray reality accurately could explain the almost universal aspect of society to turn towards religion for explanation of the still unknown. Black Elk noted this global rapport while having his "Great Vision:"

So, we are reminded once again that we are part of something greater than ourselves. We are an active part of reality. We force reality into a form we can further mold and therefore use. Our sculpture grows as we grow. The cast of each new reality being based on our beliefs that were formed from previous molds.

Whether Gods or pawns, whether dreaming or awake, though we may see the world differently, it does seem that what we cast our gaze upon, this awesome bastion upon which we ride through the heavens round that fervid pyre, is the same for us all.

Berkely, George. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge. Hackett Publishing Company. Indiana. 1982.

Blackley, R. John. "Plainsong." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 1995.

Descartes, Rene. Discourse on Method. Hackett Publishing Company. Indiana. 1993.

Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. Hackett Publishing Company. Indiana. 1993.

Dillard, Annie. Pilgrim at Tinker Creek. Harper Perennial. New York. 1985.

Feinberg, Gerald. "Quantum Mechanics." Grolier Electronic Publishing Inc. 1995.

Ferris, Timothy. The Mind's Sky. Bantam Books. New York. 1992.

Hochberg, Julian. "Perception." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 1995.

Hume, David. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Hackett Publishing Company. Indiana. 1993.

Kaku, Michio. Hyperspace. Oxford University Press. New York. 1994.

Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago 60637. 1970.

Magritte, Rene. The Human Condition. private collection, Paris. 1934.

Neihardt, John. Black Elk Speaks. University of Nebraska Press. New York. 1932.

Neisser, Ulric. "Cognitive Psychology." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 1995.

Patton, Phil. "Magritte, Rene." Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. 1995.

Siler, Todd. Breaking the Mind Barrier. Touchstone. New York. 1992.

Talbot, Michael. The Holographic Universe. Harper Perennial. New York. 1991.

Taruskin, Richard. "eternal chant: An Anthology of Classic Gregorian Chants the Vocal Music of the French Monks." Atlantic Recording Corporation. 1994.

Wolf, Fred Alan. Parallel Universes. Touchstone. New York. 1988.

Tomes of Wisdom

GrayMind's Cyber Enquiry & Understanding