The Universe Is Mental--------by Aminu Mohammed

Ponder One

Hold a blue box in your hand or a box of any other colour or in fact any object at all. But for the sake of the argument I wish to present herein, a blue box shall suffice as it is a simple object with a simple colour. Now the box is in your hand. And you know that, not because you know "objectively" that a box is in your hand but because you are experiencing a group of sensations that your brain, in its capacity, has identified with the conceptual state of affairs that is -"A box is in my hand". I hope the previous statement is meaningless to you as it is only then that the full impact of my argument shall be felt.
In case you don't know, as you most certainly won't -as it is a process so fundamental to our experience and so constant that we fail to notice it -everything we know about our reality and our universe comes to us through and only through our five senses. Some might argue six, but hey, we're mature people here and don't believe all that ESP shit. If you do, please present yourself so that I may convince you otherwise, or in the case that you prove incredulous, that is, obstinate like that bearded ruminant and unwilling to change your world view, gird you.
So, we all now believe that all knowledge comes through our senses. If this is true, then we are all now Empiricists, adhering to the world view of Empiricism. You're welcome.
Now, that box is still in your hand and we shall not forget it as it is a very important box and you wouldn't want to hold a box forever. Knowledge that that box is in your hand came in through your senses. You See it, you Feel it, you Smell it -if it be endowed as such, hear it -if It could make sound, and taste it -if for some weird reason you choose to. This group of sensations are the only means by which you know that that box is in your hands. If you think there is some other way oblivious to me, indicate so that I may gird you after proving to you that in fact there isn't.
Now notice that the box you are holding is entirely defined by its appearance, feel, smell, sound and taste. Notice again that these are all but properties. What do you discern herefrom? If you have followed my ramblings hither like a Great White on a blood trail, you would see that all you experience about that box are its properties. Hey, you that is already thinking this as hair-splitting, I congratulate you for having your cerebrum devoid of that which that nosy arachnid casts, but will still gird you as do I to any fellow who errs in understanding my arguments. Pardon my turgid means of discourse as it is so because I have found that those moustached men who speak of these things employ this means. And it, in some weird way you can't clearly discern, makes who's writing this appear really smart. As I am eons from smart, at least I still can deceive others that I am. Do not let this, however, cast any shadow of doubt on my argument as that would be very unfortunate for you and me. More you for you would have held the box for nothing.
Now, why has that fellow who thinks my argument -that we only experience the properties of the box rather than the box itself- as hair-splitting, erred woefully? The answer is as thus:
You see the box. If the box weren't there you wouldn't see it. It seems only common sense therefore to conclude that since you're seeing the box, the box has to be there unless we're in the unfortunate case that you're hallucinating. If this is the case then I can only but tell you to turn in the direction of the arm you're least dexterous in when you get to Yaba. If you're left-handed then you've hurt me by spoiling my punchline subjectively. But given that I am the contrary, it still impresses me and I shall commend myself.
So now, do we agree that if we're seeing the box, that it is the box itself we're really experiencing? Decide now before you read further. Have you? Be honest like Pinocchio can't but be. Okay then. If your answer is yes then woe unto you. Why? Read.
Vision is deceitful. You see, when we see something, we aren't really experiencing that thing directly. We are only experiencing the outcome of light interacting with the atoms and molecules of that thing and then bouncing towards and hitting our retinas. Now pay attention you that is not well versed in science as your failure to understand that that will be hence expounded would be only as a result of your failure to heed me. When we have vision -not that that our folly of prophets claim, but the simple process of seeing (pardon me ophthamologists for I have unwittingly insulted your profession)- all we see is colour and intensity. These colour and intensity are determined by the initial intensity and colour of the light and then whatever transpires between the light and the atoms in the box. The atoms in the box do some things to the light before reflecting them towards our eyes. These things done to the light determine the colour and intensity of that which hits our retinas. Now after our retinas get the light, our brains do something remarkable. It uses the properties of that intercepted by the retina to construct a representation of the box. The protocol or language of this representation is entirely independent of the box but on the wiring of the brain itself.
Brace yourself reader for you now tread into Terra incognita. And if you've been here before, please do well to shut up and not steal from the awe which I wish to deliver.
You see when light hits the retina and the retina sends impulses to the brain, the brain measures -or whatever it really does- the wavelength of this light and ascribes a colour to it just like we ascribe names to object. So colour is just a name for a particular wavelength of light. Very simple.
Oh, sorry readers for it shall not be that simple; for what beauty lies in simplicity? I pray you, wherever you find simplicity in your life, shuffle it till you can no longer understand what you're seeing.
When I mentioned earlier that colour is just but a name or tag given to a particular wavelength of light, you should have found yourself disagreeing if not but for some vague reason you can really lay a hand on. If you had that feeling, kudos to you for you are no longer in kindergarten. And for the sake of comparison and bragging rights, I'm in Service year. Now that is a punchline for I'm actually in my service year.
So colour isnt just like a name for a particular wavelength of light. It is much more complex. It is a sensation, an experience. It is such that it isn't directly produced by the object we're seeing it on but rather is a sensation our brain has developed and identified with the particular wavelengths of light being reflected by the object into our eyes. It is a Quale (If you don't google that word then you're incorrigible.)
So when you see the blue on our blue box being held by you obedient and curious reader, you say the box is blue because you're a lazy and spoilt child and more importantly, because that statement is simple yet entirely understandable to the listener and still does not omit any relevant information. But in actuality, the box is not blue. The box has no colour. The box only reflected light to your eyes, and your brain, having constructed a shelf laden with Qualia, triggered the Quale corresponding to the wavelength of the light and making you experience the Quale of blueness. So blueness that you're experiencing is not originative of the box but of the language your brain has evolved to impose on the result of the interaction between light and atom. A crude analogy is that of a blind man standing beside a busy road e.g Mushin Road. He has constructed a device such that if a Lamborghini passes it gives him a particular kind of slap; if a buggati passes it gives him another kind of slap and so on. Won't the man be an insufferable simpleton to now utter such a statement as "Chai, Lamborghini dey pain face..." or " Buggati doesn't hurt as much as a Citroen."? Or even more, perhaps the man could build an Ontology on slaps, that is, ascribe a name to slaps based on their feel and intensity. So he says "Lamborghini is ___" or "Innoson is ____". Won't that be madness?
If you, after reading all the above, still turn your head away like a quarrelsome infant and say that the box is blue still, then I am rich for I will take that titanium skull of yours and sell it.
Intensity on the other hand just controls how much energy or density the brain gives to the experience of each colour. Much doesn't need to be said on that.
So what have we learnt thus far? We have learnt that Vision is just a language the brain speaks to us about the irradiation being undergone by our retinas. It isn't exactly what is out there but an interpretation of the properties of the things out there.
So look at that blue box in your hand. Talk about the colour of the box. If you say the box is blue then your thought-engine is as retentive to knowledge as glass is to light. If you have learned thus far then you would instead say "That box is such that the light which it reflects into my eyes has a wavelength for which my brain has developed the Quale of blueness for". Is that so hard? If everyone talked in this manner, there would be no ambiguity. Especially between couples.
So you seeing the box only means that your brain is telling you -albeit in a weird language- about the properties of the light being reflected from the box to your retina, just like the machine is telling the blind man about the kinds of cars passing in slap language. This same argument holds for all the other senses. Let the arguments for them be exercises for you.
So now, you are not truly experiencing the box or anything else around you, nor anything in your life; not that meal of heavenly savour, not that first kiss nor that last thrust cum quiverring (Cum here means 'with' in latin. It's awesome that both meanings apply), not that phone in your hand off which you read this, not your own body and not the entire universe itself; but mental representations or Ontologies of the properties of those things. The true nature of those things can never and will never be known. Now if this argument, to you, proves too hasty to motivate such a leap in world view then read it over again. If not, you can drop the box.