To Believe: A Man’s Quest to Understand Reality

by M I A Harba

  He went to the university campus in Al-Chadria, and it was a little difficult finding the exact location of the Parapsychology Department. He needed directions from passers-by. Dr Al-Harith had left a message with his secretary to let Sam in as soon as he arrived.

  His office was spacious with a large window overlooking the Tigris. Palm trees decorated the area around the building, which added a real beauty and comfort to the soul.

  Dr Al-Harith was very courteous and asked Sam to sit and ordered a drink for him. He asked why Salam was not with him, and Sam explained the reasons.

  Dr Al-Harith started by explaining the purpose of his department. They taught psychology in the department, and his students got a degree in psychology. However, he was involved in parapsychology research, which was not part of the degree curriculum; parapsychology was not yet a mainstream science. He said, during his few years leading the department, he met with many people gifted with, one could call, powers from beyond the norm. He met and interviewed people who could predict the future, move objects by focusing their minds on them, or even tune TVs to channels by looking at the TV screens.

  Sam mentioned what Dr Talib said about the influence of consciousness on matter. In particular, how a sub-particle, at the level of the electrons or protons, could behave as a waveform or a particle, depending on whether conscious entities observed them or not.

  ‘This is one possible interpretation of the particle/waveform duality upon detection of the particles. There are other possible interpretations, but the one you are referring to suggests that consciousness, or observation by conscious entities, influences the behaviour of the particle. This takes us to the issue of consciousness. What is consciousness? According to the Science Journal, in its 125th Anniversary edition, the biological basis for consciousness is ranked the second most difficult and still unresolved problem in physics and science as a whole. Number one issue is what is the universe made of.

  ‘Consciousness is sometimes referred to as the ‘hard problem’. It is not well understood, and there have been many theories regarding its causes and origins. When we say one is conscious, we normally mean that person is aware of the surroundings and uses experience to analyse situations unfolding in front of him, to make the best decision at that moment. So basically, the conscious entity uses past experience to ponder over what he sees and can make decision's one way or another depending on his sensory input, i.e. seeing, hearing, touching etc.

  ‘It is in fact real; the brain plays a significant part in the analysis of the environment a person experiences. Consider seeing, for example. Two spatially separated images collected by the eyes are transmitted via the nerves as electric potential pulses to the brain. Remember, these two images on the retina of the two eyes are 2-dimensional images. But the brain processes these images and converts them into a 3-dimensional model of the environment around that person.

  ‘Special sensing elements on the retina detect the different basic colour components of light, and this information is used by the brain to create the 3-dimensional colour representation. So, what falls on the eyes becomes a 3-dimensional model that we see not inside our brain, not inside our eyes, but as objects outside of us, at their exact locations. Isn't that amazing? 2-dimensional images become a 3-dimensional scenery, not inside our brain, but actually outside it?’ Dr Al-Harith explained.

  ‘Yeah, this is absolutely amazing. Frankly, I never thought about this before. One tends to take this for granted. It's part of what we are,’ replied Sam.

  ‘Exactly. The brain has been doing this since evolution, and we just take it for granted. We see objects and people around us as though they are outside of our body, outside of our brains, even though they are pictures within our eyes and are transmitted to the brain as electrical pulses.

  ‘But this is not the end of it. We now know as a fact that what the brain models, and how it represents the objects around us, does not actually reveal the objective reality. What I really mean is that the brain kind of approximates the reality around us and convinces us that this is the only reality out there. So, when I look around now, I see there is a table here, a well-defined table, and I see you sitting on a chair, but this is not what is out there. This is what the brain convinces us or tricks us into believing,’ Dr Al-Harith said.

  ‘Tricks us? I really don't understand,’ replied Sam.

  ‘Okay, let's go back to basic principles. I think you are aware that the atoms are basically empty space. And the nucleus itself is also empty space. The smallest detectable particles or sub-particles are the quarks, gluons and whatever. These are not particles but fields. So if they are all empty space, why do I see the table as a truly definable table, with dimensions and feel of solidness? Why don't I see it as a stack of atoms that are basically empty space, or, putting it in a slightly different way, as empty space? i.e. as nothingness?

  ‘Apparently, we have evolved to look at things in a particular way. Our sensory of five senses, particularly the eyes, have evolved to focus on the light that comes off things into our eyes. Light is a bombardment of photons entering our eyes. These photons are reflected by objects around us and enter our eyes.

  ‘How objects reflect photons is very specific. When sunlight photons fall on an object, like for example the table here, some get absorbed by the fields constituting the atoms of the table, and others get absorbed and then re-emitted by the atoms themselves. Now, the eye receives these photons and forms a picture of the places where these photons have been reflected from. How they are reflected and their intensity, i.e. their brightness and shadows, decide how the image of the table is created in the brain. In other words, the brain looks at the images that are basically reflected photons. It does not look at the constituent components of the table, or sees them as atoms,… or as empty space,’ Dr Al-Harith explained.

  ‘Indeed this is very interesting. So the eyes rely mainly on the reflected photons, and where they come from. They don't care about the material or things that have reflected those photons. But why not see the real thing? If the brain evolved to assist humans with their vision, wouldn't it be better to see things as they really are? i.e. not only the reflective features but what's inside them, and how they behave under different circumstances,’ Sam commented.

  ‘It is difficult to explain this exactly. But this is probably attributed to evolution that decided what is important for the survival of the creatures.

  ‘Let me paint a scenario for you. Imagine yourself as a caveman, who lived maybe 100,000 years ago. You go into a forest hunting. You only see reflected light as we humans do now but can't see the inner particles of plants and animals around you.

  ‘Another caveman, who evolved slightly differently, has other features that his brain provided for him. He could see the atoms of the plants and the animals. He might also have Xray vision, where he could see the inside of animals and plants. He could see the digestive system inside animals, the internals of insects, and could also see how plants absorb water and how the various minerals go up the trunks, I mean the xylem and phloem.

  ‘Now imagine a tiger lurking between the bushes. Who do you think the two cavemen will be able to detect the tiger faster and easier? Do you think it's gonna be the one who sees all the details about the plants and animals around him? His poor brain would be bombarded by a huge amount of data and has to analyse all this data in order to assess the risk, posed by the lurking tiger. Or do you think it's going to be the caveman who could only see the reflected light, and therefore, could focus on the movement or the differences in texture between the tiger and the background? i.e. less data for the brain to process.

  ‘Of course, it would be the caveman who can detect differences in the texture and colours of the tiger with respect to the surroundings,’ Dr Al-Harith explained.

  ‘Indeed, I think so, too’ answered Sam.

  ‘So all the cavemen who evolved to see all the internals, and the atoms of the area around them, would probably have gone extinct because th
e tigers and other predators would have eaten them. But the cavemen who could see the tiger from reflected light could probably run away or defend himself, and therefore had a better chance of survival.

  ‘What I'm trying to say is, we have evolved to focus on the matters that provide us with a better chance of survival. So, the exact reality is not necessary for this purpose. Only the perceived reality the eyes can detect,’ explained Dr Al-Harith.

  ‘Well, this makes quite some sense actually,’ Sam said.

  ‘If I tell you that there are no colours out there around us, would you believe me?’ asked Dr Al-Harith.

  ‘How can I believe you? I see colours everywhere. Even on this table, I see different materials with different colours, so the answer is no, I wouldn't believe you,’ answered Sam.

  ‘Fine, let me put the argument in this way. It is a known physical fact that colour, or how photons convey colour, is related to the frequency of the electromagnetic waveform of the photon. I'm sure you are aware that light is an electromagnetic waveform that travels in space in tiny packets, and these packets are called photons.

  ‘In nature, we find photons with waveform frequencies extending from very, very high frequencies, to very low frequencies. This variation in frequency is often referred to as the electromagnetic spectrum.

  ‘Take a radio receiver for example. The long wave channel receives electromagnetic photons whose frequencies are low, and, therefore, their wavelengths are very long. Mediumwave receives medium frequencies and medium wavelengths. Shortwave, as the name implies, means the photons received are those with short wavelengths and high frequencies.

  ‘And we can continue this way up in frequency. Your mobile phone receives frequencies that are much higher than the shortwave of the ordinary radio receiver. Mobile 5 G has even higher frequencies. Microwave frequency range appears next, and so on until we reach the visible spectrum. The lowest frequency of the visible spectrum, and therefore the longest wavelength, is the red light, and blue is the highest frequency of the visible spectrum, i.e. has the shortest wavelength in the spectrum,’ explained Dr Al-Harith

  ‘Yes, of course. I know this. I still remember it from my secondary school physics’ answered Sam.

  ‘Now, our eyes receive photons of various frequencies in the visible spectrum, reflected from the objects in our vicinity. The sensory elements of the retina can differentiate between the frequencies falling on it. All these frequencies generate pulses from the detecting elements of the retina to the brain. The brain then collects all this information transmitted by the nerves coming from the eyes, or I should say from the various colour detecting elements within the retina, to provide a colourful picture.

  ‘Not only you see the objects, but you also associate colours with them. So the colours are basically nothing but photons, or I should say visible photons, of different frequencies. It is the brain that collects all this information and presents it to us as a colourful model of the world outside. And it shows them outside of us, not inside of our brain.

  ‘So, when we go to a garden and we see roses of different colours, beautiful and pleasurable to the eyes, we need to remember there are no colours in nature. They are photons of different frequencies reflected by the flowers in the garden. So, the colours are within our brains not out there. There is no such thing as colours, it is what our brain interprets for us as different colours,’ said Dr Al-Harith with enthusiasm.

  ‘Yes, this is absolutely fascinating. I never stopped to think about it this way. I always assumed the colours are out there, not inside our brain,’ answered Sam.

  ‘Indeed, they are inside our brain, not out there. What amazes me more is how did the flowers know that by reflecting these frequencies, the brains of the conscious entities will interpret these frequencies in the way we see them? Plants are not supposed to have sensory input to allow them to see those colours. How did they know about the colours? How did they learn about this?

  ‘I guess it's evolution again. Plants with the right colour of flowers and scents have survived, and plants that did learn through evolution the use of colours and scents, have died off or gone extinct,’ explained Dr Al-Harith.

  ‘Exactly,’ Sam whispered.

  ‘This is how evolution works. So, what I'm trying to say is, what we see, whether in black and white or colour, is not the true representation of the objective reality out there. It's how our mind interprets this reality, remembering that there is nothing out there but empty space.

  ‘Of course, the same applies to smells and our sensory. There are only molecules of a particular structure that our nose receives, and the brain interprets them as the perfume's we smell. Sound is nothing but vibrations of air molecules. When they fall on the ear, signals get transmitted to the brain and the brain interprets them as the sounds we hear. So, a Mozart is basically molecules vibrating in a particular way, between the musical instruments and the ear. If you happen to observe music waveforms on an oscilloscope, you will see pretty much incomprehensible noise. But, by some miracle, the brain and the ear perceive them as the music we hear and love.

  ‘In summary, the brain paints for us the reality out there, what we see, hear, smell etc. It is not necessarily the objective reality,’ explained Dr A-Harith, and continued, ‘You also need to understand that gravity, and how we are pulled down, is the effect of the molecules and the fields in our bodies interacting with the fields emanating from the earth or the objects that pull us. When we feel things that are supposed to be nearly 100% empty space, we feel them as solid, not hollow, or empty. This is also the works of our brain.

  ‘This boils down to the fact that the fields of the molecules or atoms in our fingers interact with the fields of the atoms and the objects we feel. The finger sends electric pulses to the brain, which gives us the feeling those objects are solid. The object and the fingers are both empty space.

  ‘This goes a long way to show that the brain is the entity behind all this illusion if I can call it an illusion. In fact, many scientists now believe that the observed reality, or what we perceive as reality, is nothing but a super illusion created by the brain.

  ‘Okay, let's go back to the issue of consciousness, the hard problem. As I mentioned, there are many theories to explain it, but so far there is no theory that has achieved overall acceptance by scientists.

  ‘The classical explanation of consciousness is that it emerges from the brain. The explanation relies upon the fact that the brain is composed of billions of neurons or nerve cells. These neurons network through their axons with other neighbouring neurons, forming trillions, upon trillions of synapses’ i.e. the points of contact between the nerve cells. The brain operates as complex transportation of on/off neuron signals that get conveyed between the neurons. On /Off means whether the neuron fires or not. This is basically what people believe as thinking, or as a normal brain operation. Because of this kind of structure and operation of the brain, some scientists are led to believe that it is the brain that is the source of consciousness.

  ‘If one extends this analogy to a computer programme running on computer chips that simulate a very large number of neurons, would you expect these programmes to be conscious? I mean what programmers refer to these days as Neural Networks. These computer programs learn and behave in a fashion similar to how human brains work. But, so far, no programme has been discovered to be conscious, and hopefully, they will never be.

  ‘Take, for example, your mobile phone. It has a neural network working, for voice recognition as in Siri for example. But your phone is not conscious.

  ‘This is the classical explanation of consciousness, that it emanates from the brain. But they don't actually provide a good explanation for this. Why would neurons, firing and acting normally, make the brain conscious and aware of its surroundings?

  ‘OK, the brain interprets all the pictures, the sounds, the smells, and everything else. It also provides the control necessary for the organs within the body to function. But what makes a pers
on aware of his surroundings, utilising his past experiences to resolve new problems or new issues? No explanation is provided.

  ‘Some scientists can tell you, through an MRI scan of the brain, which areas of the brain are associated with what functions. For example, seeing is determined by that part of the brain that receives more blood flow when one is looking. Speech is associated with a different part of the brain that receives a significant blood flow when one speaks. The same applies to other senses. Thinking and being aware is therefore related to brain activities directly, those scientists deduce.

  ‘However, I see it as circumstantial evidence of consciousness and how it is related to brain activities. It could be that when one becomes conscious of a certain experience, the relevant part of the brain becomes active. It is, therefore, not necessarily the brain activity that produced consciousness, but vice versa, i.e. consciousness invokes these brain activities,’ explained Dr Al-Harith.

  ‘Yes, I can see their point of view, but I actually support the classical view. For example, when someone goes into the operating theatre and is anaesthetized or sedated, the brain activity comes to a kind of standstill, and the patient loses consciousness. So it must be the brain that generates consciousness,’ Sam said defiantly.

  ‘Unfortunately, it's not as easy as this. When one is sedated, indeed they lose consciousness. But remember that consciousness and the brain work together in a supportive way. Without the brain available to process data, consciousness cannot operate. I mean they work together. When one is missing the other cannot work. So one might say, if consciousness as a concept is not there, the brain might not feel or experience awareness. This circumstantial evidence is not absolute proof that the brain is the creator of consciousness.

  ‘Let's go back to what you mentioned earlier about the sub-particles behaving as waveforms or particles when they are detected by a conscious entity. Let's assume that this interpretation is the right interpretation, i.e. consciousness is the cause. So, when an electron is observed by a conscious entity it behaves like a particle, otherwise, it is a waveform. But please remember, when we say a waveform, it implies the waveform of the probability of where the electron could be found. But let’s not into the details of this, as it is pure Quantum Mechanics that I don’t fully understand.