Albert Einstein quoted “Religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame.” Almost a paradox, or oxymoron, taking into account the immense conflict that the two bodies come into. Agnosticism, claiming a neutral stance, states that “any ultimate reality (as God), is unknown, or probably unknowable” (). Atheism, on the other hand, is neither as viable a stance, nor a logical take on religion, as one who “maintains that there is no God.” While maintaining that there is no God, per se, Atheism makes the mistake in maintaining “God,” as a tangible medium of faith, thus defeating it’s very purpose. One cannot, however, argue the existence of an intangible, or non-existent body, leaving any level of debate in a perpetual spin. My stance on the matter, though, draws on a different medium, maintaining that such bodies, tangible or not, exist only through the collective consciousness, and belief of such matters by the general psyche that persists in humanity. Thus, neither religion nor science become the prevalent means of existence in our society, as existence itself, can only be explained by perception.

            Deprive a single human being of the five senses linked to general perception: Sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste. What then, does existence become? With loss of vision, colors cease to exist, as do the general forms of objects. With loss of auditory function, and the sense of touch, objects lose texture, form, and basic properties (Such as weight, or composition). With the further loss of olfactory, and gustatory function, objects will cease to exist. A child, slowly incubating in his mother’s womb, what exists for such a form? Only with the addition of the basic senses does the world itself come to life, only then does what we perceive as “life,” come to exist. Does a form without the ability to perceive believe in God, in evolution? If you don’t know what God is, does he still exist? The basis of religion is in maintaining the influence, and existence of a deity through faith, which is also a medium of perception and thought. If all Christians were to suddenly cease practicing their faith, is there a God? Does this apply to individual practitioners of a certain faith, or a completely different faith as a whole? Drifting to the other end of the spectrum, the theory of evolution would not exist if there were no scientists to study the phenomenon. Taking that into consideration, the basis of longevity for both sides of the argument pertinent to our existence, both support the fact that without the human mind, both subjects are nigh. The mind being the only medium for conduction of our sense of perception, human beings cease to exist without it, death being clinically defined as the “cease of brain function that can be measured be EEG.”

            Greek philosopher Protagoras said "Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not.” To a great extent, he was probably far ahead of his time in terms of philosophy, and correct in his theory. Taking note that we all probably had to be created at some point, take this into consideration: With the introduction of the five senses, objects are given their basic properties. We can see that water is liquid, that a mountain is tall, and rocky. Yet, somehow at one point, we’re stuck thinking the Earth is flat, and we are the center of our universe. With our invention of basic transportation, and the introduction of mathematics, as well as inventions such as the telescope, the Earth suddenly becomes round, later spherical. The Earth suddenly becomes a planet orbiting an immense sun, the universe suddenly taking scope, the magnitude of it’s size becoming apparent. The introduction of flight, and aerospace technology give the planets of our solar system composition, also aided by the invention of powerful new technology. When you begin to examine the progression of our existence from that of a flat surface in the middle of the universe, to that of an improbable anomaly amidst the current of an infinitely vast universe, it becomes apparent that the sole reason for the general knowledge, or even the existence of the universe as it is today, is a direct product of the advancement of man. Could you explain the size of our universe, or the composition of Jupiter without any of our technology at the time? Without such instruments, the universe as it is, would probably cease to exist as a tangible body in our mind. Yet, tangency in itself is yet another propagation of man’s never-ending quest in search of the, again, “ultimate reality.”

            Considering the above facts, the lines between what can be considered as real, surreal, fiction, or intangible begin to blur, even fade away. If what’s considered “real” is a byproduct of the collective conscious of humanity, what can be, realistically, considered, well, real? (No pun intended, of course). Furthermore, how can we consider the word “real” as an effective medium of existence, if real itself, is also at the same time, the brainchild of perception, and is thus unreal at the same time. Can anything be considered real? Exemplifying the sheer power behind the mind, simple propositions can be blown out of proportions infinitely, yet with the arguments currently at stake, they can make perfect sense, or none at all, at the same time. Such is the power the brain leases to a human, or an animal, even the smallest organism; The power to bend reality around oneself. Just like a jellyfish, though, reality is not made up of one, individual mind, but millions of minds, to form one, which meld together, forming a single, sentient form. Who’s to say humanity isn’t the product of some other organism’s collective consciousness? An octopus, a lion, both of which are proven to show perceptive ability, could we not be a mere hologram projected by the mind of a creature which we deem inferior? Or perhaps, as a whole, the world, and all it’s inhabitants, are simply on the same level of existence, equal to one another as the “creators” of our universe, after all, humans are not self-sufficient as some animals are, and would surely not be here if not for the aid of animals. Perhaps the sign of some sort of mutual symbiosis, key in the existence of not only ourselves, but those around us. Again, though, this is merely speculation based on evidence present in nature.

After a bit of reading here, one might ask, how is it that the world does not exist, although everyone else can clearly perceive everything that is going on, at the same time. Again, it comes down to what can be called the “collective consciousness.” The world is perceived as uniform by such an immense number of minds, the form of the universe ceases to change, and probably never will. How do you remove an image from wood, etched by fire, without first destroying the original piece of wood? A man once said, a mind stretched by a new idea, will never return to it’s original dimensions. If you fill a balloon with water, and tie it off, it’s nigh impossible to return the balloon to normal, without popping the balloon itself. The father of Futurism, F.T. Marinetti, was probably correct in his endeavors to destroy the history of the world, destroying all museums, colleges, libraries, in an attempt to start over anew, his views on history perfectly conveyed by his belief that “History is the process by which the dead bury the living.” In order to change existence, by that token, humanity would have to destroy it’s very foundations, all which we are built upon, everything that makes the world what it is. Then however, how is it that the universe stretches far beyond that which we can see? Look at it like this: We wish for there to be life on mars, and there is, with the aid of only ourselves to be accounted for. We invented the technology, thus, without the power of the mind, life would not exist on mars. Man wishes for there to be other planets beyond our solar system, and so there is, only with the aid of our own minds. There is no outside force swaying the existence of these phenomenon, simply our own desire for their existence. Is there life in the universe other than ours? If we wish hard enough, the day will probably come. This theory, in which perception, and the mind become the basis of our existence in it’s current form is only supported by such degrees of information persistent in society.

Looking in retrospect of what’s been said, even perception itself starts to become sketchy, it too, being yet another concept of man-made production. Just imagine, the only reason for existence, the only reason for this entire, vast universe coming down to a single element, a single form: The brain, a sole tool in not only the conception of perception in itself, but also a primary organ, vital in the life of every creature. Every organism in existence has some form of structure that can relate to a “brain,” whether it be a nucleus, or something completely different, they all exist to perform the same function, which is to preserve life. What is existence, then, without the mind? There’ll probably never come a time in which we will ever find out, perhaps, though, the answer everyone seeks, that ultimate reality, is right behind our very eyes. Hell, one could even go on to argue that organs themselves are merely elements of what our eyes are showing us, then, going even further than ever before, where does perception even begin to propagate? Does this reality, or anything in it really exist as we know it? Even then, where does this concept of reality come from, and concepts like such can stretch infinitesimally. Obviously there are numerous theories which strive to explain the existence of the universe, or at least attempt to act as the supplements which form the stepping stones down the path of truth. Yet, as mere speculation, it becomes increasingly difficult to pinpoint that “ultimate reality,” in which we all seek. Perhaps, though, the simplest answer, in the case of perception, does indeed, become the best answer.