Unravelling the mysteries of the social world

Mind vs Matter

In his book “Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation: Why Physicists Are Studying Human Consciousness and AI to Unravel the Mysteries of the Universe” [1], George Musser defines the inside/outside problem as a fundamental tension between the third-person description of the objective world that physical science traditionally seeks to explain and the first-person perspective of an embedded, subjective observer which is only available to the observer himself.

How is the inside/outside problem related to the classic distinction between physical reality (matter) and mental ideas (mind)? This is a deep question philosophers have discussed since Descartes (“I think, therefore I am”) for centuries. Descartes’ dualism says that the mind is a non-physical, thinking substance, and the body a physical, extended substance. They would be two fundamentally different kind of things, yet able to interact.

Philosophers like Gilbert Ryle argued there is no such thing as two substances, no ghost in the machine [2]. But we certainly have a distinction between the matter in our head, which we can not easily access or observe, and the matter in the outside world, which we can study and measure objectively. The points of interaction are of course simply the sense organs which transform the light and sound waves that describe the outside world into electric pulses and patterns inside our brains. And our muscles which convert electric pulses back into physical movement. The mind is obviously related to all the inside stuff, encoded in the neurons and synapses inside our brains, and the physical reality is related to the outside objects.

The hard problem is to cross the boundary between inside and outside, if we try to understand the first-person view in others (the hard problem of subjective consciousness which we have discussed a number of times) or the third-person view of ourselves (related to self-awareness and the problem of free will, which we also discussed recently). From this point of view the two fundamental problems of the hard problem of subjective consciousness and problem of free will are related, because we have to cross the inside/outside boundary in both cases.

Explaining and understanding our inner experience requires to cross the inside/outside boundary of inside experiences and outside objects. Language in spoken and especially in written form that our minds are able to master after years of learning and school education allows us to cross the inside/outside boundary. No new physics required. Only new machines to make it easier to cross from one side to the other: we know them well. First we witnessed the emergence of writing systems in ancient civilizations, then the first books, the first novels and early theaters, after the invention of the printing press much more books, and eventually cinemas and TV screens. They all allow us to share our experiences and to synchronize our knowledge of the world.

Cinemas as frame synchronization tools

Cinema and TV screens can be considered as the windows where we can observe the actions and perceptions of someone else. They are frame merging or frame sharing devices: for the time of the movie we and the leading actor experience the world through the same set of synchronized frames. This allows us to transcend the inside/outside boundary that seperates the inner world of subjective experience and the outer world of physical events.

What does frame mean in this context? In the social sciences, framing is a set of concepts and theoretical perspectives on how individuals, groups, and societies organize, perceive, and communicate about reality. It is about selecting certain parts of an event or product and neglecting other. Mikael Klintman defines framing like this [3]:

“Framing is the automatic or strategic process of selecting, shaping, interpreting, and organizing a part of our complex reality into a bounded construction that may affect both our own and others’ understanding and actions.”

Each of us has a experiences a certain set of frames through which we have perceived and experienced reality. The frames determine our viewpoint. They can distort our view like a brand.

Cinemas make the frames of other accessible to their viewers. They are fascinating for us because normally the character and personality of a person is not observable. It is only known by family and friends. In this sense a personality is a windowless substance, as Leibniz called it. Cinemas open windows which let us peer into the life of others: we start to understand their subjective experience and witness how their personalities and characters are formed by witnessing how they react to challenges and difficulties.

They have this magic capability because they are able to cross the inside/outside boundary mentioned in the beginning. Film cameras capture like sensory organs physical forms and their movements, transform them into electric pulses and patterns, and store them in encoded form in some kind of medium. Film projectors like motor organs and muscles transform the patterns back into physical forms and their movements.

Book References

[1] Putting Ourselves Back in the Equation: Why Physicists Are Studying Human Consciousness and AI to Unravel the Mysteries of the Universe, George Musser, Oneworld Publications, 2025

[2] The Concept of Mind, Gilbert Ryle, University of Chicago Press, 1949

[3] Framing – The social art of influence, Mikael Klintman, Manchester University Press, 2025

Photo References

Unsplash photos:
Equation photo by Vitaly Gariev, Frame photo by Pine Watt, Cinema photo by Toni Pomar