A Constructed Truth

The five senses sense reality.

They send the streaming data to the mind.

The mind compiles the data to create a model of what the world is.

The mind also archives such a model and seeks to integrate further incoming data with a previously created model.

Sometimes some data is missing. One may hear only a sound which one identifies as the sound of a bird and the model incorporates the presence of a bird in the vicinity. In reality it may be an electronic sound.

Thus the mind may also be fooled into believing things because of its complete dependence on previously constructed models which form the basis of interpreting reality.

A magic trick is an example of how one may be so befooled even if one is completely sane and alert.

However, it is the nature of the mind that it fills in the gaps in incomplete data to construct the complete model. This is the source of efficiency - one cannot always see a cube from all 6 sides to know that it is a cube.
And it is also the source of error - one may be fooled into believing that the cube is solid, whereas it may only be made of 3 walls that make it look like a cube from the point that I see.

I can see a wavy shape in the dark and "know" that it is a snake.
This can protect if it is actually a snake.
It can fool if it is a piece of rope.
It can prevent gain if it is actually a thick chain of gold but I run away in fear.

My very "seeing" and "knowing" that it is a snake may be a complete delusion if I have a mental aberration.

Hence, the data coming separately from my 5 senses may be incongruent - what my eyes tell me may not fully match with what my ears tell me. In which case my mind will seek to resolve the incongruency by either looking for further data, or by adopting a previously constructed model to fill in the blanks.

These incongruencies of sensory data are a big help, if one is seeking to construct an sane model of reality.
Sometimes, insanity or irrationality is the ignoring of such incongruencies of data and conditioned adoption of previous models which may be completely or partially inconsistent with the current reality.

It can be seen easily from this that so many times previously constructed models of reality substitute for sensory inputs. And vice-versa.

A movie is actually sensory data of light and sound which substitutes reality in some way.
Or, when I meet a stranger, I "read" the stranger and seek to understand him through previously constructed models of reality. A sloppily dressed person will evoke a certain model of reality which makes me "see" that he is not a particular person. Alternately, I could also see him as a nerdy professor.

Which option I choose as closest to reality is based on a variety of factors. Yet the fact remains that I do not perceive reality - I only see my previously constructed models of reality.

If I did not, I would probably have no way of interpreting the world, I would see the baby in as incoherent a way as a baby sees it.

A baby is the construction of models of reality in its very initial stage.
An adult is someone who has reasonably well constructed models of reality.
An irrational person is someone who has models of reality that either do not match yours, or which are inconsistent within the person himself/herself. The irrationality may also be a model of reality which has been adopted as a survival strategy.

It may help to consider a model of reality in terms of how successful it is or how useful it is, rather than considering whether it is right or not. After all, a certain model of reality may be successful even if the person knows that it is not right (which means, it does not mesh with his central structure of models). For example, the concept of telling "white lies". Most parents will tell their kids not to lie, and yet everyone lies, and yet most people still stick to a substantial amount of a "truthful" mode of living.


Sources of Errors

A being which is concerned with survival will compile data in a manner that is most suitable for survival.
A being which is concerned with gaining something will compile data in a manner that will allow the being to function in a manner optimal to gaining that thing.

This data compilation can be at a surface level, where the being is fully aware of this bias of compilation.
Or, it may be at a point which is very fundamental, which influences the very direction of growth.

As a tree may either lean some leaves towards light.
Or it may lean its main stem towards light and structure its entire growth in that fashion.

However, sooner or later this real need for survival or gain may disappear, and yet one is left with a model that is based on this past need, and one's future intake of data may still continue to be compiled as per this model.

Interestingly, most of the data that one uses to compile one's model of life is necessarily second-hand. Most of the sub-models of one's model will also be second-hand.

One may ask a friend what is the best way to deal with strangers in a strange city and he will advise something which may form one's very basis of dealing with everyone.

One may, as a baby, simply emulate the explosive or fickle or neurotic emotions of one's parents as a survival strategy and this may become so central a part of one's persona that one may not be able to shift from such behaviours upon reaching adulthood.
Which is different from a person emulating an anger that he has seen somewhere to act aggressive in a situation because he perceives that being aggressive will benefit him in the case.

Thus, one also perceives reality through previously constructed models. Soon, one is so used to it that one uses only the slightest reference to reality to activate the inner model.

I can see the tip of a car bumper in my rear-view mirror and "know" that there is a big mac truck behind me. I can reference the movement of this bumper with my environment and know that it is speeding dangerously, right behind me.
The reference from reality is minimal here, yet I can easily take avertive action on the basis of my models of reality which are instantly constructed from data that is highly minimal and which is perceived for only 1/3rd of a second.


Co-joint Models of Reality

It can also be very easily seen that we share models of reality to a great extent.

As pointed out, most of the time we never construct models of reality ourselves, but borrow them from someone. When we read a book or watch a movie or read a poem, we tend to unconsciously borrow the models of reality depicted therein. We may modify these models to fit our own previous models. Or we may outright reject these models if they are not consitent with what we have already possess.

A metaphor often makes us shift our existing model of reality in include another. An insult may often point out an unsavory aspect of a model that we possess, and thus create an emotion of anger at one's own specific model of reality being shown in a negative light.

A culture is a collection of people who share similar models of reality.

Thus, while we tend to believe that we are individuals, we are actually composed of an overwhelming number of such borrowed models. And of course, most of these models are inherited over millennia - passed down, not necessarily from our parents, but from the society that we have lived in, which got them from its predecessors. These models are what are variously referred to as memes or beliefs or ideas. The concept of God or the concept of a certain culture being a negative culture are again models of reality that may have passed down in our specific cultures.

Thus, communication between individuals and societies are means of exchanging these models.

A model of reality is also that all individuals are merely clusters of various models of reality which are linked together - a massive collection of algorithms which connect to form a social model of reality. And every individual may possess internal models that do not fully match that of a social model, if that can ever be pinned down. Yet, they must match the social model in a way that is satisfactory to society, because whether we like it or not, every human has borrowed his models from society. There are some who completely borrow these models and constantly realign themselves with society. Those who do this at a superficial level are often referred to as politically correct humans. Those who refuse to realign their models with society may be called rebels.

Whether politically correct or a rebel, it may be impossible for any individual to claim that he does not owe over 99% of his models of reality to his society and environment. The very formation of our selves has been influenced in a very profound manner by the rest of the individuals we are connected with.

Thus, we seem to be mere components of a larger system.


Conflicting Models of Reality

We all possess models of reality that are not coherent with each other - they have points of conflict, and hence cannot form a consistent structure of such models within ourselves.

When a person has such excessive or overtly apparent incoherency in his models, we call the person as confused. If such incoherence is so over-abundant as to make the person incapable of functioning, then the person may be categorized by society as having mental aberrations. However, even within this person there will be large zones of coherency - its simply that these zones do not agree with each other. Sometimes these zones may match with each other in a twisted fashion, and form a direction of persona that society labels as a psychopath.

Like an individual, even cultures and societies may have these internally incoherent models of reality - which we often tend to refer to as the hypocrisy of society, or the craziness of it all. And not surprisingly, this is reflected within individuals also. After all, society is merely a distributed computing system, and society exists as much within the individual as the individual exists within society.

It may be possible for a person to not be coherent in his relationship with society. This may be because the person has good coherence within himself and his models do not agree with those of society. It may also be that the person has chaotic models. He may also have models which in itself would work fine if he were an isolated unit - Like a serial killer would perhaps have no issues if he lived alone. However, his models are incoherent to the larger society, and hence society takes great pains to identify and cauterize itself of such "aberrations".


The Aliveness of a Model of Reality

While we have hitherto looked at models of reality as relatively static, it is essential to see that it is sometimes closer to being a modular computer program or an algorithm. Thus, an algorithm or a model of reality may be such a very highly useful utility that everyone tends to adopt it.

Again, the concept of "white lies" is one such algorithm that that everyone adopts to iron out some incongruencies within themselves or in their behaviours (which are, of course, the direct results of their models of reality).
However, a good model of reality connects well to other models to form a structure, it may be considered as an algorithm with several connectors and ports.

Thus, a successful model of reality will naturally be used more, and an unsuccessful model of reality will be cast out simply because it does not work. Some models may prove to be useful in emergencies. Some at all times, in the long run.

Because of this ability of a model of reality to connect to other models, each model has the possibility of birth, growth, evolution, modification, death, and propensity to survive. Thus, these models could be said to form a network that is complex and alive, a network which links all of our minds into a gigantic computing system, thus allowing us to take decisions as a society or a culture, as well as individuals.


The Falsehood of all Models of Reality

If we only see reality as a model of reality, then is there any way to see reality without forming models of it? And if so, what use is it exactly? And can one even function without forming such models?
Undoubtedly, one cannot function - the mind would be complete chaos, and the complete dissolution of all such models would be akin to death.
Perhaps the dissolution of all such models, or the superstructure of such models in a very fundamental manner is what our scriptures refer to as the negation of the self, after which one can see the truth.

It is also very easy to see that all models are false - even those which are very close to reality - because they are simply models. A completely accurate model of reality would not be a model in the first place - it would merely reflect what exists in the time that reality is sensed and dissolves the instant one moves away from that reality. By definition, a model of reality is a static capture - its a photograph, which is then used for practical purposes like survival or prosperity.

But in the end, its an illusion - whatever our minds perceive is merely a grand illusion. Like all our scriptures say, it has no reality. The self, the living collection of these models of reality, is simply an artificial construct.

The perception of truth can happen only when there is a perception without the shackles of the self.

-- The End --