Once, a fellow motorcyclist asked, pointing at my ride, “What do you call her?” I responded — “nothing!”. Casually explained how it’s just a machine. She wasn’t impressed but remained jovial — “You called her a machine, now she’ll breakdown!” This reminded me of a David Hume’s quote from ‘A Treatise of Human Nature’ – “There is a very remarkable inclination in human nature, to bestow on external objects the same emotions, which it observes in itself; and to find everywhere those ideas, which are most present to it.” Hume goes on to attribute these inclinations to mostly children, poets, and ancient philosophers. Maybe the lady was a poet. My own instincts tend to go the other way; I’d rather bestow on humans the characteristics of inanimate objects. We are also machines – but with immensely complex circuits. Guess this would mean I am no child, a poet, or that ancient philosopher.

Hume’s insight is probably more prevalent and often a cause of serious mischief. Recently, on a ride to Orcas Island, I stayed overnight at Anacortes to catch that early morning ferry. Motorcycle parking in a motel lot is always risky, so to minimize attention, the bike was draped in a dull two-wheeler cover. The next morning, I noticed this feral cat sitting and staring at it. In a parking lot filled with cars, this draped bike might have piqued his curiosity. We can actually never know. If I say the cat was curious, it just means that if I were a cat, then I’d be curious. For all you know, that cat might have been a fan of Triumph motorcycles, and it was simply gazing in admiration. Or maybe it was just daydreaming. Possibilities are endless. Unless we place sensors in his brain, we can’t truly understand the meaning behind his actions.

Not just in animals, we have this propensity to assume intent based on the actions of our fellow humans, too. Sometimes it’s related to the curious actions of our spouse, parents, or relatives. Our subject of scrutiny can also be the distant actions of some movie star or politician, as seen through YouTube or TV. A lengthy, contentious discussion about the behavior of such a celebrity is not uncommon. But whenever we assume intent from actions, it only tells us more about our own mind and assumptions, which may or may not be relevant to the actual object, animal, or person being scrutinized. Not surprising that Hayek once said, “We are studying mental and not physical events, and much that we believe to know about the external world is, in fact, knowledge about ourselves.”

Extending this beyond cats and motorcycles, we can state that perception is inherently contextual. This applies to the conversations we have, the emails we send, the photos we capture, or, for that matter, any creation. It does not imply that perception needs to always align with the “true” context of the object. For instance, movies need not be perceived based on the director’s intent; it only needs to make sense to the observer’s mind. Hence, a work of art with mass appeal will typically be layered. So, even if the director intended horror, it could get an award for comedy. But the application of scientific theories is rarely subjective – imagine using chemotherapy for the common cold! In that sense, we can afford to live in a subjective reality until we cannot. Our creations do add value, but it may not be for the reasons we perceive. Life is a bit about realizing all this and calibrating for that divergence. It’s also about understanding the larger implications of the mind’s contextual nature on individual identities and social fragmentation.

Republished at ridersmodel.com