1 Introduction

I am the proud owner of a philosopher’s stone. Although it does not hold any of the mysterious powers (e.g., turning lead to gold, providing endless youth) that the alchemists attributed to its namesake, I nevertheless feel its title fitting, as it offers some rather deep insights into the importance of perspective in defining what seems true. What distinguishes my stone from an ordinary river rock is that it has engraved upon it the statement “Nothing is written in stone.” In pondering its irony, I’ve come to realize that my philosopher’s stone can be viewed in at least three ways, each leading to a different accounting of its merit. From one vantage the statement on the stone is self-evidently false, as clearly revealed by where it is carved. From another it is demonstrably true, as the word “nothing” is written in stone right there. Finally, the fact that the presentation of the stone’s message simultaneously reveals it to be both true and not true enables the stone to clarify the paradoxical essence of its meaning. Nothing is definitive because a change in perspective may shift what is seen as factual. However, the stone further illustrates that when one recognizes how the perspectives that one takes influence the conclusions that one draws, one gains a larger meta-perspective that can accommodate them both.

Figure 1: From one perspective, as evident from the place onto which it is carved, “Nothing is Written in Stone” is a contradictory statement. However, from another perspective, “Nothing” is in fact written in stone, making the statement true. Thus, “Nothing is Written in Stone” illustrates that when one recognizes how the perspectives that one takes influence the conclusions that one draws, one gains a larger meta-perspective that can accommodate them both.

Although it is relatively straightforward to describe the manner in which my philosopher’s stone conveys how shifting perspective can alter what is seen as true, such descriptions do not do justice to the impact the stone has when one actually encounters it. The stone not only conveys its message, it embodies it. Its message thus speaks not only to one’s capacities of logic but also viscerally, physically, through one’s senses. Indeed this difference between the third-person account of something and the first-person experience of it is perhaps the ultimate example of the manner in which perspective can alter how we understand the world.

In this paper I attempt to nudge the field towards a rapprochement between the subjective first-person perspective of experience and the objective third-person perspective of science. My efforts are divided into three somewhat distinct sections; all united by the goal of illustrating how the divide between the subjective and objective might begin to be bridged by a broader perspective that acknowledges that while neither can be reduced to the other, they may be alternative vantages of a larger meta-perspective.

In the first section, I use the analogy of reversible images to emphasize the importance of perspective shifting in recognizing that views that seem one way from one perspective may seem quite different from another. However, when one recognizes that both views are different vantages on some deeper structure, a meta-perspective can emerge that potentially offers a vantage by which the opposing perspectives can be reconciled. I propose that the relationship between the first-person perspective of subjective experience and the third-person perspective of objective science can be conceptualized in this manner, and that at least some of the heated debate between scholars on this topic may stem from their exclusively favoring one vantage over the other.

In the second section, I illustrate how the third-person perspective of science can both draw on and elucidate first-person experiences, and in particular the ubiquitous internal state of mind-wandering. I argue that although people’s self-reports of private internal experiences such as mind-wandering necessarily rely on a re-representation of the experience to themselves (meta-awareness), we can nevertheless draw inferences about their underlying experience by examining the relationship between self-reports and physiological and behavioral measures. Triangulation between these measures has highlighted both the strengths and limitations of people’s meta-awareness of their drifting minds: although people frequently fail to notice that their minds are wandering, when queried they are quite accurate at reporting whether or not their minds were on task. This analysis thus reveals the value of using empirical third-person science to clarify the nature of first-person experience.

In the final section I consider how first-person experience may inform our understanding of objective reality. Current views of science offer no way of accounting for the existence of subjective experience, the flow of time, or the privileged present, leading mainstream science to marginalize these essential elements of consciousness as irrelevant or illusory. However, from my vantage these aspects of existence are at least as certain as physical reality itself. It seems nonsensical to characterize experience as an illusion, because even an illusory experience (i.e., where the contents have no bearing on physical reality) is still an experience. Moreover, experience exclusively resides in an ever-changing present. A characterization of reality that has no place for subjective experience, the flow of time, or importance of the present seems devoid of the core aspects of my existence. In keeping with others who have speculated that theories of physical reality will need to be expanded to accommodate subjective experience, I conjecture that consciousness may correspond to movement in an additional subjective dimension (or dimensions) of time. Although this hypothesis is highly speculative, it provides an example of the kind of meta-perspective that may be necessary to successfully accommodate subjective and objective views.

Clearly I have my work cut out for me. However, before embarking on the more ambitious aspects of this journey, let us first step back and consider the nature of perspective and the impact that it can have on understanding.