Are Your Thoughts Your Own?
Everyone’s probably seen Inception one time or another in their lives.
But, let’s ignore the groundbreaking visual effects and the intricate storyline for a moment and focus two ideas in the film: (1) the ability to influence the thoughts of others without them knowing it and (2) the difference between living in the real world and the dream world.
If you take a small step back and reflect on everything and every decision that you’ve made that has brought you to this current moment, would you say that the thoughts that led to the the majority of decisions you’ve made in the past are your own?
Put more simply, let’s pretend there’s an unsatisfied blue collar worker who’s decided to quit a job today. However, at the same time the company he works for has also decided to notify him that he will be fired that day. Whether he quits first or is fired by his company, is there a difference?
I think that’s part of the message behind why we never get to see if the top stops spinning at the conclusion of Inception. You’re forced to make your own choice about something you’ve seen and there’s arguably no correct answer either. Does it matter if you’re living in the dream world or real world if the results are identical?
No, it is the choice that is important. It is the fact that you have thought and come to a conclusion that is personal to your interpretation that is significant rather than the ambiguous outcome of the film.
There are so many examples of this question of the significance of a true or a fake reality, but I think of these conversations miss an important point. Even if the results are the same, your conscious decision to choose based on your individual preferences makes the difference.
Some of you probably might be thinking of the Matrix trilogy at this point as well. But if you strip the idea of a Matrix from its Hollywood storyline and its focus on the conflict of characters such as Neo, Agent Smith, or the autonomous robot collective, there’s no rule or physical law that says that a “fake” cannot exceed the original in embodying the original.
The classical thought experiment of a “brain in a vat” embodies this concept:
A simple version of this runs as follows: Since the brain in a vat gives and receives exactly the same impulses as it would if it were in a skull, and since these are its only way of interacting with its environment, then it is not possible to tell, from the perspective of that brain, whether it is in a skull or a vat.
Should we care about the reasons behind why we think the way we do if there is no way to distinguish between real and fake? While it’s impossible to know with absolute certainty regarding the nature our we exist in reality, I believe that the thought does count.
Even if we cannot strictly prove it, being cognizant of why we think the way we do gives us freedom, even if our free choice leads us into the same situation or circumstance as if we had not given any thought towards things.
“I think, therefore I am.” It’s an expression originating from Descartes nearly three centuries ago, but which still finds itself repeated ad nauseam in regular conversations today.
On the topic of clichés, what about the one where the world grows closer together yet further apart with the arrival of technologies like the Internet and the ubiquity of the smartphone.
With the advent of these new communications platforms, our ability to discern the reasons for why we prefer certain things and to choose are slowly diminishing, eroding away until we have nothing left of our own. In the 21st century, originality is fast becoming a nonrenewable resource.
The signs are everywhere. Are we losing a degree of empathy with the people that immediately surround us? An insightful piece, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” about how the Internet is shifting and changing the way we think published in The Atlantic in 2008 highlights the problem pretty clearly.
And author Nicholas Carr gets right at the heart of the issue.
I can feel it, too. Over the past few years I’ve had an uncomfortable sense that someone, or something, has been tinkering with my brain, remapping the neural circuitry, reprogramming the memory. My mind isn’t going — so far as I can tell — but it’s changing. I’m not thinking the way I used to think.
At some point, you have to wonder if that technology is beginning to eat at the core of our existence and what makes us human, that is, our ability to think.
Following up with this idea begs the question, “If you stop thinking do you cease to be human?”
Look, I’m not talking about the obvious examples like being mentally disabled or impaired, being put into a comatose state, when you fall asleep, or when you lose consciousness. Let’s exclude those cases since they’re not central to the matter of you having autonomy or control over your own thoughts.
What I’m thinking about is something about our reality that’s much more sinister. Consider when you’re conscious, healthy, have no severe mental issues, but lose yourself to the rhythm of a mundane lifestyle. As you go about your daily routine, here’s the punchline: “Are your thoughts your own?”
Where do you draw the line between “I’m making personal choices and I’m happy and satisfied with where I am” and “My behavior and my thoughts largely revolve around societal expectations of me.” Is there a line to begin with between these two things?
Those of us in the United States often find ourselves embracing a sort of American exceptionalism, but the reality is that no matter how nonconformist or unique you may believe you are, you’re still bound by social norms and trends.
Ironically, nonconformists conform to their own ideologies, meaning that while the nonconformist ideology does not conform to the “socially regular or accepted” ideology, it is still consistent (i.e. conforms to) itself.
Language in itself structures the way you can think. While giving you the ability express certain things with greater resolution, it also robs you of seeing things in another perspective due to the ways in which society controls and binds the meaning of words and phrases.
If all thoughts and mental frameworks were perfectly expressible, then translation between languages and cultures would be much less complex and the expression “lost in translation” would have no meaning.
So, things are already not looking good for free thought if the language that you use to express your free thinking can only go so far and if you’re already tied down by social convention in how you portray your understanding of something.
With the bombardment of advertisements in every corner of our lives, it may not be an exaggeration at this point to say that there is a very real campaign going on that mirrors the work of the teams in the fictional universe of Inception.
A lot of this is speculation in the sense that we don’t have some sort of detailed, classified strategic report on customer acquisition from some of the largest corporations (maybe some of you reading this might). However, there’s no denying that a spectrum exists for how media and advertisements influence the purchasing behavior of individuals and even their desires.
At any rate, we can at least scratch the surface and attempt to learn the most from extreme examples of how companies might try to “incept” us. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but when you have examples of individuals spending up to $10,000 on micro-transactions, then it lends a bit of credence to the idea that companies are designing systems that specifically aim at influencing purchasing behaviors.
I think a common belief most people have is that even if they’re policed and monitored and observed, their thoughts are still private and their own. I think, and I use that word with caution, that the previously impenetrable barrier of our mind is beginning to crack.
We should all be alert as human ingenuity advances and drives us towards unchecked domains faster than ethicists and moral theorists can even begin to wrap their heads around what is happening.
