Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Re: Venki

I will then just have to try this experiment again for myself. I have tried meditating, for many years of my life, but I have never been able to see the `seer`. But then you would say that I was not clearing my mind enough.

My question would be: How does one know that one is not concocting the `seer` from one`s imagination? I have personally concocted many things in some episodes of my life, and they are every bit as real as anything else. Godot asked a question, and a part of my reply to it was: ``If a lunatic in an asylum thinks that he is the king of the land, is he really so?`` I know that I have the capacity to be a lunatic, so how do I know whether the `seer` actually exists or is a figment of my overactive imagination?

I will defer the discussion of there being as `essence` of things to another time, since that topic is very vast, and my knowledge of it is very sketchy. But off the top of my head, the opinions of Heidegger and his camp on this may be interesting to you.

regards,
Wasiq

Re: Wasiq (41)

`` Earlier in replies to this article, there was a mention of the ``second law of enthropy``, without any understanding about what it really says and hence a wonderfully amusing reference to it.``

I understand the need for precision in definitions and need for rigor. The allusion to entrophy was an attempt to convey a certain idea rather than the use of the term in its strictly classical thermodynamic sense. Maybe I should have clarified that before using that term, so as to avoid misunderstanding.

``Some concepts need not be undefined buzzwords which anyone can summon at will to support any argument.``

If that helps in better understanding, I will desist from using scientific terminology that has a precise meaning and not transpose them into a different context:)

Regards.

Re: Goga (40)

``Even some experiments in the philosophical domain will remain unconclusive as Godel and others have shown.``

It is probably better to first understand what Godel really says before making any declarations. Earlier in replies to this article, there was a mention of the ``second law of enthropy``, without any understanding about what it really says and hence a wonderfully amusing reference to it.

Some concepts need not be undefined buzzwords which anyone can summon at will to support any argument. While that may work in a domain where people would not like to define what they want to talk about, in the physical sciences or mathematics, unfortunately, this luxury is not present.

So please, if you must quote Godel, then do it in a proper context.

cheers

Re: Wasiq (37)

``dil kay behlanay ko Ghalib yeh khayyal acha hai!``.

Ditto.

Re: Godot (36)

As I reiterated before, I agree with you that a debate that does not lead to action and practice is pointless. But even debates leave their imprint on the mind and hence on the consciousness. They can stay in the subconscious for long or sometimes they can come to the surface and push one to action. Of course, this action could be progressive or regressive:)

Re: Wasiq (35)

`` (a) What is this direct observation? Please give me a specific example(s).

(b) Why is one necessarily led to the conclusion that a simpler (material) explanation will not suffice? ``

Re: (a)

We are both agreed that we want to break from the

bondage and the limitations of the mind. Yet, we rely on the mind for observation in our daily life. Take absent-mindedness as an example. Your eyes may see and the ears may hear, but if your mind is not attached to these senses, you go `What was that again?`, since you really don`t see or listen. We are all familiar with the complaint that we are not paying attention, meaning the mind was not focused. The senses are thus necessarily the instrumnets of the mind. But mind as I said is the closest to the object, the external world. It is not the subject, the seer. If we use the mind to observe the seer, we are treating the subject as on object and we won`t observe anything since the mind is inadequate. So we come away with the conclusion that there is no seer. The issue then is to bring the mind to rest, absolute stillness, well-controlled and restrained. Try emptying your mind of any thoughts, including thoughts about no- thought! That takes enormous effort and practice. Once we master the mind and it is subdued, and the ego is also dissolved (the endeavor of every religion - humbleness and humility are half way stations to the eventual dissolution of the ego) the consciousness is still and the background, the void, the subject emerges and is aware due to its own effulgence, without the filter of conditioned existence. That awareness of the seer, by the infinite power of its own light, is what I am calling `direct observation`. You see, our resort of the mind to explain this phenomenon causes us to call it an `observation`. These are all merely words.

Re: (b)

Let`s take your proposition and belief (yes, despite or rather due to your arguments, it is a belief) that consciouness emerges from matter. You would say, just as fragrance emerges from a flower, even though the individual ingredients (carbon, hyrogen, oxygen, atoms, molecules etc) that make up the flower do not have the fragrance, just as the `intoxicating quality` of wine arises from grape juice fermented with yeast, even though that quality is not present in the individual components, so too consciousness emerges when matter is mixed in the right proportions to form the human body. If consciouness is an essential property of the living human body, then it should be inseparable from it. But it is not. When one faints or goes into deep sleep, the living body is seen without consciousness. And on the other hand, in dreams, consciousness is seen without the living body. When a dreamer awakes, he disowns the dream-body, but owns the dream-consciousness. The dream objects are sublated in the waking life, but the dream-consciousness is not contradicted even in the waking life. When a person wakes up after seeing a tiger in a dream, he realizes that the tiger is unreal, being only a dream-tiger, but the fact that he saw a tiger in a dream remains a fact even in the waking life. This proves that consciousness persists through the three stages of waking life, dream life and deep sleep life, and is much superior to the material body, which is its instrument and not its cause. As I said before, the subject, the knower cannot be reduced to the object, the known, since all objects presuppose the existence of the subject. Hope this explains better.

Regards.

Godot (36)::

Somethings are mysterious, and others we would want to be mysterious :) Pointlessness or purposefulness, who knows, but at least ... ``dil kay behlanay ko Ghalib yeh khayyal acha hai!``.

regards
W

Re: Those participating in this debate

I believe I have come full circle to the question I posed to Wasiq about Weinberg`s pointlessness a while back.

The fundamental question to me, a man in search of himself, has been an age-old one. Who am I and what am I doing here? My observation is that the East has tried to answer that question intuitively, the West analytically; and while the West`s analytical reasoning has benefited the masses enormously in terms of making material life better, the East`s intuitiveness has benefited only a handful (the `initiated ones`, they say), and only spiritually.

I agree with SR that, given a million years or two, the ``intellect`` might be able to reconcile with the ``seer.`` Until then, I will rely on--hence, the full circle--Weinberg`s pointlessness.

Venki (34)::

``It would be a postulate only when there is no direct observation.``

Then it must be demonstrable. Considering me to be an amateur in this field, can you explain to me:

(a) What is this direct observation? Please give me a specific example(s).

(b) Why is one necessarily led to the conclusion that a simpler (material) explanation will not suffice?

best
W

Re: Wasiq (33)(31)

Wasiq,

Don`t worry:) Abolutely no offense taken! I agree with SR`s characterization of the fundamental difference in the underlying basis of our respective arguments. I understood that from the very beginning and tried to work with that limitation. The fundamental centrality of matter or object from which emerges everything else, is at the core of your worldview. The fundamental centrality of `spirit` or subject from which emerges everything else, is at the core of my view.

`` I have not been able to see any reason why one would have to postulate a `ghost in the machine`. ``

It would be a postulate only when there is no direct observation. When there is testimony from authoritative sources, we can do one of two things. We can ignore it or we can setup the necessary experiments to prove it for ourselves. Any scientific theory that has been proved by a small group of scientists remains a postulate to the rest of the laypeople, until they are willing and able to prove it for themselves. In the realm of the born-blind, if a person with vision were to arrive and describe the different colors, two different people can differ in their responses. One person can say it is all mumbo-jumbo and carry-on, while the other can say, maybe it is true and work towards gaining vision, to be able to see the colors for oneself.

``But beyond that, I see no reason or evidence, and until one is available, why complicate? There`re enough mysteries already, and one`s days are always numbered.``

As I said, the evidence is present, if only one is willing to look for it. That willingness can only come from within oneself. So I can perfectly understand your above standpoint.

``It seems that it is very hard to get to objectivity, to a point where one can step out of the confines of one mind`s imaginations and biases. Perhaps, that is where Venki, myself and others want to go anyway, but have different ways of expressing it.``

The difference is not in the way of expression but the path to it. You are trying to get to perfect objectivity with the hope that, that`s what holds all the answers. Whereas what I am advocating is getting to the source, to the absolute subject. And then harmonising and merging the object and the subject into a unity that transcends this duality of our existence.

Re: SR (32)

`` The trouble is that the human imagination is far more powerful than the neo-cortex based `intellect`. (Thus the rampant pervasiveness of what you call `pseudo-intellect`.) Thought, itself being an ethereal entity, easily succumbs to the temptation of the ethereal. Matter and logic easily get demoted to a lower tier of acceptability. ``

In light of the above and Wasiq`s question (Re:20) on the soul-intellect-mind-body connection, let me elucidate where I am coming from. Soul is the seed of conscience. Conscience is the source of consciousness. Consciousness is an aggregate of intellect, mind and ego. Normally it exists in 3 states, the `waking state`, `dream state` (REM- Rapid Eye movement sleep) and `deep sleep`. The fourth state `the super-conscious state` is what we strive for. The mind has the power to imagine, think, attend to, aim, feel and will. The mind`s continual fluctuations affects the inner sheaths namely the ego and intellect and hence consciousness. It is the faculty that can see within and without, though its natural tendency is to involve itself with objects of the visible. In collaboration with the senses, the mind perceives things for the individual to see, observe, feel and experience. These experiences leave impressions. Thought is a mental vibration based on past experiences. Memory is an unmodified recollection of words and experiences. These imprints generate fluctuations, modifications and modulations of the consciousness. The seer identifies with this fluctuating consciousness and gets drawn to the object seen and identifies with it. Then the seer becomes engrossed in the object. This becomes the seed for the diversification of the intelligence, and makes the seer forget its own radiant awareness. When the waves of consciousness are stilled and silenced, the true expression of the seer is revealed. The mind thus needs to be restrained, disciplined and stilled to reduce and eventually stop the fluctuations of the consciousness in the `waking state` to reach the `super-conscious state`. Mind is the most subtle form of matter. `Deep sleep state` is the non-deliberate absence of thought waves and knowledge, and the mind and consciousness are at rest. Deep sleep gives one a glimpse of the seer, but only indistinctly because the light of discrimination is clouded. Simulation of this state of sleep when one is awake and aware can give the glimpse of the seer. Intellect is concerned with the knowledge of facts and the reasoning faculty and is closest to the seer but non-manifest in it. So the microcosm can be visualized as the soul as the core, with the intellectual, mental, physiological and anatomical as the external sheaths in that order. I hope I have given a glimpse of the inner worldview as I see it, even though it is somewhat long-winded and cumbersome.

Re: Kafir (31)

``I would have liked to participate in this debate...``

You are still welcome to.

``However, having read the replies from you and Wasiq, it`s quite clear that Wasiq has won his arguments. He has backed up his statements with logic and reason, whereas you have repeatedly obfuscated the issues with ill-defined terms, unsupported assumptions, and circumlocution. Be a dear and admit defeat!``

It`s not about winning or losing the argument, for they are two different worldviews and the proof of it will lie with the experience of the `practitioner` as opposed to us windbags!

``As for your philosophy of the `seer,` sorry friend, but it holds about as much water as bucket riddled with holes.`` ``...Likewise, I have confidence that we will one day understand the physical basis of consciousness and cognition. The `seer`, as poetic as the concept is, will one day be regarded in the same light at the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Boogey man, i.e., a simplistic explanation of the world meant for a child`s understanding.``

That is just your viewpoint and you are welcome to hold it. Viewpoints, may I remind you, by nature are subject to change and further change and further change and....

``I suggest you direct your sentiments into poetry or fiction and leave rational discourse to others on this matter.``

Hmmm, poetry and fiction, now that`s one area where I would really be hooted out of!!! As for rational discourse on this matter, we don`t want certain ideas to putrefy into group-think and then dogma, now do we?:) The least that a true scientist can do is stay agnostic and be willing to test any theories sincerely. Perhaps on the above ideas, it will take someone or some circumstance more persuasive than me, for you to test.

Best Regards,

Venki

Venki (28):

Dear Venki,

I apologize for the harshness of my last message. SR is right, we will have to learn to disagree. On my side, I push myself to try to get to the core of issues, at least as I see them, and to the best of my ability, I have not been able to see any reason why one would have to postulate a `ghost in the machine`.

If I were to describe the `seer` as a higher emergent property of our present human mind, then it would be an acceptable hypothesis. Something akin to what a chimpanzee must sense, our remote ancestors must have sensed or a child senses long before she is an adult.

But beyond that, I see no reason or evidence, and until one is available, why complicate? There`re enough mysteries already, and one`s days are always numbered.

regards
Wasiq

Kafir (31):

Dear Kafir,

Thanks for the message. Your illustration of the mythology associated with natural phenomena is very apt. As SR wrote, the power of our imagination is truly phenomenal and marvellous ... it can create whole new worlds. Yet, if one looks deep into the structure of a myth, one possibly sees an Intellect at work which is trying to connect the observed world around it into an understandable set of relationships.

It seems that it is very hard to get to objectivity, to a point where one can step out of the confines of one mind`s imaginations and biases. Perhaps, that is where Venki, myself and others want to go anyway, but have different ways of expressing it.

regards
Wasiq

SR (32):

Rabbani sahib,

You have observed very well. You are right, our imaginations are indeed very powerful and very basic. (Is it a mere coincidence that language and story-telling are associated with us since the dawn of humans?)

I think Dawkins made a very interesting point, about the cumulative nature of ``scientific`` knowledge. Definability, communicability and verifiability make it possible for a person like myself today to surpass towering minds of yesterday. This also implicitly defines an ``objective`` nature of this pursuit, though at times it may be slow in its realization. Hence a knowledge not possessing those three attributes is perhaps not cumulative and bound to be subjective.

Continuing on your very nice comparison of the imagination and intellect, I would like to share something that I read a long time ago, and have never forgotten. A preface to a proof in real analysis contained the following verses concerning the nature of mathematics:

Fire of imagination,
Frozen in rigor.

The original was in French, and I have forgotten the name of the mathematician who wrote this.

regards,
...Wasiq

Wasiq,

This was a great debate, but unfortunately, it was doomed from the start. I`m sorry you got as flustered, but didn`t we see that coming?

Your two views have two very different underlying paradigms. Even Russell and Bishop Berkley could never convey their points to one another. The trouble is that the human imagination is far more powerful than the neo-cortex based `intellect`. (Thus the rampant pervasiveness of what you call `pseudo-intellect`.) Thought, itself being an ethereal entiry, easily succumbs to the temptation of the ethereal. Matter and logic easily get demoted to a lower tier of acceptability. Give the neo-cortex another million years and it may change. In the mean time you just have to agre to disagree.

...SR

Venki,

I would have liked to participate in this debate, but I`ve been out of town. However, having read the replies from you and Wasiq, it`s quite clear that Wasiq has won his arguments. He has backed up his statements with logic and reason, whereas you have repeatedly obfuscated the issues with ill-defined terms, unsupported assumptions, and circumlocution. Be a dear and admit defeat!

As for your philosophy of the `seer,` sorry friend, but it holds about as much water as bucket riddled with holes. As Wasiq explained, our consciousness is an emergent property of our highly developed nervous system. That we don`t have a sophisticated vocabulary yet to describe this phenomenon doesn`t justify a belief in a metaphysical `seer` or `soul`. In ancient times (and still among many peoples around the world), natural forces like rain, lightning, thunder, earthquakes, etc., were thought to have spiritual causes. Now we know the physical reasons for these phenomena. We also made up imaginative and fantastic stories about the nature of the cosmos and the creation of mankind. Now we understand the physical origins of the universe and of the human species. Likewise, I have confidence that we will one day understand the physical basis of consciousness and cognition. The `seer`, as poetic as the concept is, will one day be regarded in the same light at the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, or the Boogey man, i.e., a simplistic explanation of the world meant for a child`s understanding.

I suggest you direct your sentiments into poetry or fiction and leave rational discourse to others on this matter.

Regards,

K

Re: Venki (29)

The issue of the existence of underlying reality is an important topic of 20th century. I mentioned it assuming you were aware of it. I was wrong.

The example that you have given has been answered in my previous message. You continue on to say:

``Surely by the law of entrophy this `life-force` cannot be destroyed. Perhaps transmuted, but not destroyed....``

This is a joke! I am sorry but you have NO idea what you are talking about! I really dislike pseudo-intellectual babble. No wonder we are going nowhere.

cheers

Re: Wasiq (28)

``How do you know that there IS an underlying reality of nature? ``

From the testimony of the wise ones and from inference. Just as, say a layman in a remote village, relies on the scientist and from inference to know that the earth is a sphere. Of course, he can be adamant and maintain that the earth is flat even after listening to all the arguments that are proferred to him. The only option left then is to say, that he has to see for himself (perhaps by launching himself on a spaceship and seeing the earth). We all know how difficult that would be for him to put his efforts towards that end, if he even chooses to do so. Only if we accept the idea of the presence of the `seer` would we be willing to seek. If we deny its existence then there will be no effort to seek.



``It is the physiological ability of a complex system called the body to sustain the critical functions required for its persistence.``

Consider the following case: X is a person in top physical condition. Now Y holds X`s breath long enough for X to suffocate to death. What is the difference between X as a `live person` and X as a `dead person`? Note: X is still in top physical condition. What is it that can revive X? What is missing from X? What happened to the `life-force` in X? Surely by the law of entrophy this `life-force` cannot be destroyed. Perhaps transmuted, but not destroyed. But even if you don`t accept the `life-force`, which seems obvious, where is the mind, where is the intellect? Clearly if X were a car, a replacement part would bring the car back into driving condition. Why do I get the feeling that we are going round and round on a merry-go-round:)

`` Therefore to say ``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...`` is at the very least an inappropriate use of terms. ``

In light of the above example, I don`t see how. But if one wants to bury ones head in the sand like an ostrich, then I say more power to you or should I say more matter to you:)

Regards.

Re: Venki (25)

This is an interesting discussion -I must commend you on presenting your point of view very well. And (un?)fortunately it is turning towards really interesting issues!

``I concede that the confusion ...``

Thank you, but I want to persist. How do you know that there IS an underlying reality of nature?

``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...``

This way of phrasing needlessly complicates the issue, and leads to confusion. If I were to give a one-line answer to it, it would probably be: ``It is the physiological ability of a complex system called the body to sustain the critical functions required for its persistence.``

The human body is a complex system, held together by inter-dependencies of different sub-systems (respiratory, digestive, transport, immunity etc). It is a case of extreme specialization and therefore absolute interdependency. On top of that, it is a biological system, which means that a living body exists in a dynamic state of equilibrium with the external world which is the source of nourishment and threat for it.

If (a) the body were not supported by complicated set of inter-dependencies and (b) was not amenable to degenerative and irreversible decay and hence loss of functionality of its constituents once the body ceases to act as a system, it might be possible to reverse the state of death. Case in point, people can be brought back to ``life`` by restarting the heart provided certain conditions apply.

Many non-living examples around you of this scenario: Complicated machinery (Challenger disaster, minute fatigue in an O-ring leads to a large scale catastrophic and irreversible failure), large scale computer networks (corruption of system files or loss of critical routers lead to a large scale failure), market economies (withdrawal of investment capital from a fledgling economy leads to a complicated set of inter-dependent events), turbulence in fluids (local non-uniformity can spread into a large area change in fluid flow) ... there is nothing ``miraculous`` in all of this, at least not in the conventional term of the word, there are simple deterministic rules that can lead to extremely complicated situations, some of them quite irreversible.

The body, with its hundereds of billions of constituent cells, is another example. Despite the resiliency conferred to it due to redundancy, it is after all an inter-dependent system.

Therefore to say ``...what is the source of the power that is present in a `live body` and absent from the `dead body` ...`` is at the very least an inappropriate use of terms.

regards

Re: Godot (21)

Actually I tried to answer your question in as few words as possible (for obvious reasons).

For a materialist (of any flavor) the answer is completely definable and verifiable. For a believer in life after death, there are two possibilities: he is right or wrong. If he is right, then the answer is completely definable and verifiable. If he isn`t then my example applies.

You haven`t convinced me of your assertion of there being things which are neither definable or verifiable.

best