Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Re: Godot, #24

``However, if the ``intellect`` is not the ``seer`` than this whole discussion is, as Weinberg says, pointless.``

I agree, the discussion would be pointless if there is no progression. But if the discussion leads to right understanding by the intellect, and to further quest for the `seer` then it would have achieved something. What`s that saying, `Every journey of a million miles starts with a single step....`

Hi Wasiq, (Re: 22)

I understand. We all have to earn our daily bread:)

``How can it not? The very definitions of `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and the known derive from an underlying model of knowledge.``

I concede that the confusion is clearly due to lack of understanding. The very definitions of the `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the knower` derive from the underlying REALITY of `the knower` (subject-changeless) rather than from an underlying MODEL of knowledge (object-everchanging). Do we want to build on a rock or shifting sands, that is the crucial difference!

``I understood exactly what you said...``



Apparently not. Although we cannot push your computer analogy too far, let me persist. Your question would have been, `What is the difference between a computer with its power on vs one with its power off and completely unplugged`. And the answer would have been, `without a source of power and a channel to flow the power to the computer, it is merely a funny looking box`. Now a person can give power to the computer and voila it can function. Extending that further, what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body`. Can we trace it and connect it back to the `dead body`? Not yet, at least not by most people, but perhaps in the future. But this still implies the presence of a power. What is that power? As to your example of the market, let`s get the cause and effect, subject and object straight. There can be NO market (effect) without people (cause- to first create and then trade in the market).

`` The proof is in the pudding, as they say, so why don`t you provide me with some knowledge that you can only get through the `seer` but not through the `intellect`? Once you tell me something, which no other Intellect has discovered, and I verify it to be true, then I will say that there is substance to what you are saying.``

Unfortunately, I can`t venture there yet. It would truly be the blind leading the blind:) We still have to rely on the testimony of the ones with vision, until we gain our own vision. Exactly like the layman who has to rely on the scientists` testimony on `Quantum Mechanics` until and unless he prepares himself with the tools for comprehension, like the necessary maths, Schrodinger`s equations etc. If you want to know what no intellect has discovered but only inferred it is the `seer`. Only the `seer` can discover the

`seer` (Note: the subject and object are one and the same). I welcome you to discover for yourself.

But, it needs preparation.

Honesty is the virtue of buddhi (intellect). The restless mind (manas or man) leads us astray and the ego (ahamkara- root `hum` in hindi, the `I` consciousness) is the one that stands in the way. A still, calm, peaceful, serene and focused mind, that is detached from the object is an essential tool for all endeavors, especially the pursuit of the spirit. The dissolution of the ego would be the next step and so on...

Best Regards.

Re: Venki, Replies 19 & 21

Your distinction between ``seer`` and ``intellect`` is impressive and well put. However, if the ``intellect`` is not the ``seer`` than this whole discussion is, as Weinberg says, pointless.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 23

I said ``There are ``Things`` or ``Non-things`` ... that cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified.``

``Can you give me an example?`` is the question you asked me.

``What happens to us after we die?`` is an example I gave, which I believe cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified.

Your answer: ``Depends on who is looking.`` You give an example: ``A lunatic in an asylum believes he is the king of the land. Is he actually the king?``

Well, I’m lost, man. I’ve no idea what the heck you are talking about.

Re: Godot (re 18)

``What happens to us after we die?``

Depends on who is looking.

An example: A lunatic in an asylum believes he is the king of the land. Is he actually the king?

best

Dear Venki,

I am sorry for the delay ... I have to rely on my Intellect to solve the mundane problems, therefore can`t do everything at once :)

``I don`t see how lack of understanding of the connection between the different levels negates the discimination between `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the known`.``

How can it not? The very definitions of `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and the known derive from an underlying model of knowledge.

``...What is the difference between a `live body` and a `dead body`? Where is the `emergent complex state` of the `dead body` assuming materialistic origins?``

I understood exactly what you said. Perhaps you did not appreciate what I said. Let me ask you a very simple question: What is the difference between a computer with its power on vs. one with its power off? And what happens to the programs running on the computer when you switch off its power? What happens to the system programs which monitor the computer when you turn off the power? You are unnecessarily complicating the issue without providing any reason for doing so. My example of the market illustrates just how a complicated state arises from simple and deterministic rules. Why shouldn`t that be true of the mind without pulling a metaphysical monster out of the hat?

``As I mentioned, the realization will come at the level of the `seer` not at the level of the intellect, which is where we are operating.``

I am sorry for being direct: This is pure intellectual waffle-making until you substantiate it. The proof is in the pudding, as they say, so why don`t you provide me with some knowledge that you can only get through the `seer` but not through the `intellect`? Once you tell me something, which no other Intellect has discovered, and I verify it to be true, then I will say that there is substance to what you are saying.

As I said earlier, its easy to say anything if (a) you cannot define your terms and (b) you cannot verify anything.

best regards
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq

``I think, however, that this argument is an extended version of Cartesian Dualism. The problem with this argument therefore remains in explaining the connection between the different levels from body to seer.``

I don`t see how lack of understanding of the connection between the different levels negates the discimination between `the knower`, `the tools for knowing` and `the known`.

``Even if the mechanism is very subtle, it must be decipherable and communicable, otherwise how does a human being realize its existence in the first place? Ironically, in an

attempt to provide a unified view, this approach leads to a hopeless situation of incompatibility and division.``

As I mentioned, the realization will come at the level of the `seer` not at the level of the intellect, which is where we are operating. We operate in a dual world constrained by space and time of subject/object, up/down, pleasure/pain, joys/sorrows, immanence/nature (purusha/prakrthi) etc. Unless we transcend this duality where the intellect operates, we will NOT `see` the unity. For this to happen, there needs to be an involution from nature (represented by our body-anatomy/physiology), through the mind and the intellect by controlling and harmonising them until they are folded back into the seer. When this happens the veil covering the `seer` is removed and it shines forth with full brilliance of its own effulgence and wisdom dawns. The knower and the known become one. We see a spark of this brilliance from time to time in what I call the `Eureka! phenomenon` when answers come to all of us in a flash, as opposed to the methodical working of the discriminative faculty - the intellect.

``The `seer` could be interpreted as an emergent complex state that relies upon the body and the brain`s potential to give rise to the mind.``

Let me rephrase what I said earlier. What is the difference between a `live body` and a `dead body`? Where is the `emergent complex state` of the `dead body` assuming materialistic origins?

Re: Venki

``Lets take the case of a subject and object.``

I enjoyed reading this nice argument, and I think you presented it well. I think, however, that this argument is an extended version of Cartesian Dualism. The problem with this argument therefore remains in explaining the connection between the different levels from body to seer.

To say that ``The `seer` is the seed. The intellect is the root. The mind is the stem and branches and the body the leaves`` is admittedly very poetic, however it sheds no light on how this actually happens. Even if the mechanism is very subtle, it must be decipherable and communicable, otherwise how does a human being realize its existence in the first place? Ironically, in an attempt to provide a unified view, this approach leads to a hopeless situation of incompatibility and division.

I think it is far more probable that an explanation of the mind, for example, will derive from purely physical arguments. Physical arguments are by definition connected to the world around them, and thus carry the possibility of a unified view, if it exists.

If I were to take a direct analogy with a plant, then I would say that the genetic code of a human being includes in itself the potential to develop an organ called a brain, which by its sheer existence, would necessarily give rise to mind, intellect and the `seer`. The `seer` could be interpreted as an emergent complex state that relies upon the body and the brain`s potential to give rise to the mind.

One example of such a complex state is the market. It starts from the mundane business of people buying and selling, supply and demand. Yet, at every point, it can be made arbitrarily complex depending on the sheer number of possibilities related to buying and selling. In a manner of speaking it bootstraps itself, to give rise to an extremely complicated entity. The behavior of the market is essentially unpredictable right now, however, no one makes the claim that it arises from a completely separate category of entities that is not related to the physical world and the clients around it.

regards

Re: Wasiq

`` First of all, metaphysical philosophy, sounds very good in theory. But it suffers from the apparent flaw that many of its concepts are neither demonstrable nor even properly definable.``

I am not advocating philosophy as theory developed by the intellect (namely by observation, inference or testimony from authoritative sources). Philososphy will remain mere mental gymnastics as long as there is no direct `experience` of the `seer`. For this to happen you have to observe directly or just have to rely on inference and testimony. There is a methodical approach to have a direct experience open to all. But we have prepare for it. Just like the preparartion required to be able understand say `Quantum Mechanics`.



``It is always easy to say something when (a) you/others do not know what the terms mean and (b) no one can verify your/others assertions.``

Try explaining `Quantum Mechanics` or the `General Theory of Relativity` to a well educated college student let alone a lay person. The above argument you make will sound valid to them, even though you as a physicist may be able to see the inherent truths in them.

``Second, taken as a tool for practical knowledge, I am sorry to say that metaphysics has been a failure. Metaphysical thought in India, for example, is several millenia old, yet India had to wait for modern science to bring in its benefits. Despite lofty ideals, metaphysics cannot deliver the simple things that result in man`s control over the nature around him.``

I am not saying that the search for the spirit is mutually exclusive from science or its practical aspect technology. Just as only a minority are going to be engaged in science, so also only a minority is going to be engaged in the full pursuit of the spirit. Just as the impact of science and technology can be good or bad depending on how society chooses to use or abuse it, so too the precepts congealed from the pursuit of the spirit can be used for benefit or abused for profit. But ultimately the drive to know the truth will only come from within. You talk about benefits from a utilitarian standpoint. Dharma, ones duty is good and necessary, so is Artha, the pursuit of material pleasures (wealth, power etc), so is Kama (the sense pleasures). But a necessary evolution in the human cycle is Moksha (spiritual enlightenment). This can ONLY happen when the pursuit of the above three ceases to be a motivating force for an individual. When one comes to a stage where one can say `Is that all there is to life?` with an intense driving force from within and not just as a passing fancy, only then will one embark on the spiritual journey. Otherwise spirituality will remain merely one aspect of human life, as it is for the majority of the people.

`` Third, what of the incredible variety of metaphysical thought? Are they all consistent, are they all valid or can there be only one? If they are all valid, then unfortunately their information content is zero (since two mutually

contradictory ones could be valid). If only a few are valid, then metaphysical reasoning is not error free.``

It is just what you said `thought`. Thought is very ephemeral that changes with time. That which is bound up in space and time is condemened to change. Metaphysics is hence constarined too. Only when one transcends space and time can one see the changeless UNITY of the whole. To that end whatever tools can be directed, only the practitioner can say whether is valid or not. Everything else would be mere conjecture.

`` While one cannot deny the existence of something that one has not seen, it would be instructive to explain why one needs to postulate the existence of a soul, what would be the properties of the soul and indeed how would one go about verifying that it is indeed so.``

Lets take the case of a subject and object. Can YOU observe your body? Yes. Then the observer is not the body although the body is part of you. Next, can YOU observe your mind? Yes. You can see your thought process jumping from one topic to another constantly vibrating. Then the observer is not the mind. Can YOU observe the intellect as it reasons and weighs and discriminates? Yes. So the intellect is not the observer. So WHO is the observer, the seer, the subject. Now if you do not want to use the word soul that is fine with me. But don`t you see that `the seer` is not any of the above but only sheathed as it were in a progression of coarser and coarser entities that come in direct contact with the external world. As you can see, we can use the intellect to discriminate and postulate the existence of `the seer` who is present in someone who is live but not in one who is dead. `The seer` is not only present in the `waking state` but also in the `dream state` and the `deep sleep` state. Our endeavor is to go beyond these three states of normal existence to the state of `supreme bliss` if you please.

`` Wherein does the mind-soul connection arise from? And is it absolutely necessary that it should not be explainable by some physical laws and hence lie in the domain of metaphysics? If not, then it is not beyond the ken of a crude method like science. It may take some time, but it will inevitably get there. ``

The `seer` is the seed. The intellect is the root. The mind is the stem and branches and the body the leaves. Without the seed there is nothing. Trying to understand the soul by physical laws is like to use a loose analogy trying to measure the intellect using weights and measures, barometers, thermocouples etc. It is inadequate. The part cannot know the whole, only the whole can the know the part. Science since it depends on the intellect cannot know the `seer` although it can infer some. The `seer` with a full vision can with the light of wisdom see it `all`.

Regards.

Re: Godot (Reply 15)

``There are ``Things`` or ``Non-things`` ... that cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified.``

Can you give me an example?

Re: Godot

``There are statements that go beyond science and philosophy.``

I know of no statements that do that and have a decipherable meaning. Maybe I am an ignoramus, and maybe you could educate me on that.

regards,
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq, Reply 17

This example has no relevance to what I said. But I will cite one anyway. What happens to us after we die?

Re: Venki

Hi,

True, science is not a perfect method, no reasonable person would claim it to be, and there would surely be advances in epistemology. I have an appreciation for metaphysics, but there is something deeply unsettling about it.

First of all, metaphysical philosophy, sounds very good in theory. But it suffers from the apparent flaw that many of its concepts are neither demonstrable nor even properly definable. That inevitably leads to a tangled mess of confusion. It is always easy to say something when (a) you/others do not know what the terms mean and (b) no one can verify your/others assertions.

Second, taken as a tool for practical knowledge, I am sorry to say that metaphysics has been a failure. Metaphysical thought in India, for example, is several millenia old, yet India had to wait for modern science to bring in its benefits. Despite lofty ideals, metaphysics cannot deliver the simple things that result in man`s control over the nature around him.

Third, what of the incredible variety of metaphysical thought? Are they all consistent, are they all valid or can there be only one? If they are all valid, then unfortunately their information content is zero (since two mutually contradictory ones could be valid). If only a few are valid, then metaphysical reasoning is not error free.

Let me take your example. In your eyes, by definition, I would be a simpleton to try to apply crude ``dualistic`` methods to something subtle. My intention is only to try to understand what you are saying, and to try to understand it more than by mere words. So here it goes:

You talk of the progression of the understanding of the observer -body, mind, intellect and soul. While one cannot deny the existence of something that one has not seen, it would be instructive to explain why one needs to postulate the existence of a soul, what would be the properties of the soul and indeed how would one go about verifying that it is indeed so. It seems to me also that a teleological universe is bound to emerge from any hypothesis that pre-supposes a soul, since it is built into the definition of the soul.

Now what of the relation of the four aspects? An entity has a body which gives rise to its mind which defines its intellect which must underlie its soul. In the physical world, including simple aspects of life, the body-mind and mind-intellect connection is known to some degree. It is a causal connection that is explainable by physical laws. Wherein does the mind-soul connection arise from? And is it absolutely necessary that it should not be explainable by some physical laws and hence lie in the domain of metaphysics? If not, then it is not beyond the ken of a crude method like science. It may take some time, but it will inevitably get there.

I will await your response before going further.

regards,
Wasiq

Re: Venki

Soon after I hit the Send button, I relaized that I said the same thing you did on pointlessness! There is no disagreement between us on this.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 13

There are ``Things`` or ``Non-things`` (for a lack of better words) that cannot be demonstrated, defined, validated, or verified. They can be known but cannot be explained. Trying to understand them by using words or math is like peeling an onion; you will not find anything in the end. All that effort for naught ensued by confusion! Its not that those who are trying to convey ``things`` do not know what they are talking about, it is that it cannot be conveyed to those who know not what the conveyer is talking about.

Re: Venki, Reply 12

I agree with you, except for the Weinberg`s Pointlessness. It is not that the ever expanding knowledge base without an end that gives rise to pointlessness, as you take it to mean. I took it to mean that there is no Reason, no Point for us being. The whole thing is pointless.

Re: Wasiq

``I personally have the following view given my present level of ignorance: The

classical arguments for a teleological universe do not hold. That includes both

arguments involving Divinity and not involving it. Simpler explanations

involving a ``mechnistic`` point of view do answer a lot, but not everything.

Therein lies the ever present possibility for an expansion in our current

scientific models. One can argue that a more sophisticated scientific answer of

tomorrow will be closer to truth than what we have today (a la the

comparison between yesterday and today`s models). However still, no

metaphysical elements will be involved, and the explanation would be

completely ``mechanistic``. ``

That is the limitation of Science. It`s reliance on only the intellect as the ultimate tool. The intellect, powerful as it is, can only discriminate. It can only choose between one or the other, which means it is restricted to this world of duality. That explains why the evolution of the intellect into the external world leads to an ever expanding knowledge base without end, that gives rise to the feeling of pointlessness attributed to Weinberg. There is a more powerful way of `seeing` or `knowing` which involves the subtlest of all, `the source`, `the seer`.

Consider this: When understanding is minimal, at the gross level we identify with the body. When it gets clearer the identification is with the mind (manas or man). When further clarified the identifcation is with the intellect (Buddhi). And that is where Modern Science as we know it has stagnated. When we go further with the involution from the gross to the more subtle we need to transcend the intellect to the `soul` or `seer` (atma). From the above progression you can see that the subtle can perceive the gross but the reverse is not true. THAT is were the solution lies.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 10

There are statements that go beyond science and philosophy. I took Weinberg to mean in that ``context``.

Weinberg`s quote has nothing to do with the book`s merit. However, I found Horgan`s book to be very entertaining.