Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder

Actually I know what the theorems are, knowing about them I wasn`t convinced that what you said a while ago was generally true. Therefore I asked you to demonstrate it to me.

I have seen so many allusions to Godel`s incompleteness theorems that it appears that it is a good buzzword -I doubt that many people have actually spent the time to try to understand what they say.

regards

Wasiq (45):

es, math is beautiful.

Godel`s theorems suprised mathematicians when they were first presented and devasted hope of unifying mathematics and making the mathematics only a manipulation of symbols under prescribed axioms.

I am certainly not an expert in the area of mathematical logic and ``godel grammer`` does not click anything. But there is someting called godel numbering on which Godel very important ``Diagonal Lemma`` is based and several other results. I will have to brush it up before I can say more about it.

Wasiq,

Correction: Einstein was talking about Reality as perceived by the senses.

Regards

Re: Wasiq (47)

`` I believe that I have indeed seen who you describe as the `seer`.``

I am not sure. Perhaps, it may be just quibbling over semantics.

``The difference between us is about the origin and nature of the `seer`. ``

Origin implies a beginning and an end, which I refute. I suggest a changeless reality as the `seer` that is the background over which plays this ephemeral, everchanging life. Correct me if I am wrong, but you suggest that we are ephemeral to our core, with no underlying reality. The nature of `seer` can be only inferred by the dialectics of language, which is what we are engaged in. We could probably sketch an elaborate cosmogony but that would only be a pale shadow of the reality. To paraphrase,(Rig Veda?), it is neither this nor that, neither not-this nor

not-that, neither this and that nor not this and that, neither this or that nor not this or that. In other words, the negation of logic which is the highest form of dialectic of the intellect, as a tool in comprehending the `seer`. As Einstein said, `Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.` He was talking of reality as perceived by Science.

`` However, all of us face the peril of deluding ourselves. ``

We delude ourselves every minute we live, by being the slaves of our minds, rather than controlling it and directing it. So that much, we should be able to agree on. As to the path beyond that, if it is not persuasive enough from the core of our being, then I say desist, for it will lead nowhere.

Regards

Re: Venki (46)

``WHO wants to know?``

I believe that I have indeed seen who you describe as the `seer`. The difference between us is about the origin and nature of the `seer`. I thought that was what we had been talking about all along.

You`re right about meditation, it is developed over time, just like everything else. However, all of us face the peril of deluding ourselves.

-W

Re: Wasiq (43)

`` I will then just have to try this experiment again for myself.``

The `experiment` (more precisely, the way of living) needs sustained, dedicated, persistent and intense effort. Even as marathon runners, weight lifters or body builders need single-minded devotion and long hours of practice, to hone their physique in their pursuit, a seeker has to be much more persistent. Best Wishes.

`` 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. ``

The endeavor is to reduce the fluctuations of the consciousness and still it. Meditation involves control of the mind, reducing its fluctuations, focusing and concentrating it and finally emptying it. The other part involves weakening the hold of the ego (our identification with the psychophysical system) and its eventual dissolution. You may be interested in looking into the eight-fold path of yoga. Any good translation of Patanjali`s Yogasutra (aka `Raja Yoga`) may be a good place to start. But ultimately practice is the only path.

`` My question would be: How does one know that one is not concocting the `seer` from one`s imagination? ``

WHO wants to know???

``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?``

WHO IS the possessor of this overactive imagination???

WHO can control and rein in this overactive imagination???

Re: Goga(44)

Terribly sorry for questioning, however since you do have an understanding of this result, and I do have some mathematical understanding, maybe you could demonstrate to me, at least semi-formally, what would be the limits of his theorems?

It`s okay, we can talk math, no one else is listening :) (Plus I must admit I have a secret fetish for metamathematics!) I would love to talk Godel grammar for once ...

best regards
Wasiq

Godel`s icompleteness theorems are negative results pertaining to logical systems such as mathematics. Since science and philosophy are profoundly related to logic, used Godel`s reference. So my friend I know enough math to understand what Godel is saying but this is not a place for exact formulations of his ideas.

All I can say that his results have very important implications to what we can do with our logical thought or computing machines. As Paul Cohen has shown incompleteness cannot be taken lightly.

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

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.

Re: Godot

I am sorry if my lengthy reply was not clear. I intended to present a comparative view on the issue, which is relevant.

Also, I think, that the only logical reason for Weinberg to make that statement would have to be in a context of teleology. Otherwise it does not make sense. To nitpick: ``the more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems`` -- I think this means that it appears pointless, not that it is demonstrated to be. There`s a difference.

(About some background to his statement c.f Reply 8, ``There have been many scientific discoveries ...``)

You write: ``The fundamental question is Does Divinity exist in its own right, or it exists out of necessity?``

I think no one will never know the answer. And does it really matter when it comes to why people believe in a Divinity? Think about it.

You conclude: ``If the answer is the latter, then it is pointless.``

That I do not agree with. We endow purpose to things as much as we endow meaning. But then that is my view.

best regards,
Wasiq

p.s About ``The End of Science``, or should I call it ``The End of Horgan`` ... I think that his whole argument is utter nonsense. Remember Lord Kelvin`s statement to the Royal Society in the latter decade of 1890`s, that all that could be known about the physical world had been discovered, and nothing else remained to be learnt. One year later the electron was discovered, four years later radioactivity, within a decade special relativity, within two quantum mechanics. Things have never been the same.

Horgan`s fate will be worse, it already is.

Re: Godot

Since I have never heard this quotation from Weinberg, I do not know the context in which he said that. However, I suspect, that he must be referring to the various teleological arguments regarding the existence of the universe. These arguments take these different forms as far I know. Also, since I am not a philosopher, I do not know how philo will categorize.

1) The argument about the necessity of a Divinity to endow the universe and hence humanity with a purpose. There are many flavors of this argument also, broadly speaking some that are strongly anthropocentric than others (Hitherto I will refer to them as strong anth or weak anth): (a) Man as the reason for creation (b) Man as the observer/player (c) Man as an observer/player (d) Man as an entity at par with others.

2) The same argument without necessarily invoking the existence of a Divinity or a necessary being. Again different levels of emphasis on the human centeredness.

An example, the Anthropic universe -the view that a way to understand the processes of biochemistry, biology, cosmology, geology, is to assume that the universe was with the potential conditions and with physical laws which would necessitate the emergence of life and intelligent beings. Strong Anthropic universe specifies the emergence of humans (b)/(c). Weak anthropic (d) of intelligent life.

* * * * * * *

Within these divisions there is also the division along the lines of REALISTIC (LOCKE, man standing ``outside`` of the physical world that he observes), IDEALIST (KANT, the world exists only in being an object of human thought) and DIALECTICAL (the relation between man and nature is regarded as an integral part to the dynamic whole of which it is a part).

Among many proponents in (1): ARISTOTLE, everything in nature striving for its place (weak anth). IBNE-SINA, necessity for a divinity (strong anth). GHAZZALI, direct intervention of divinity (strong anth). DESCARTES, mechanistic view of the universe, except for the mind which follows its own rules (weak anth). KANT, moral dimension of humans and hence elevation to something above simply mechanistic. Also his emphasis on purpose for the existence of life (strong anth).

For (2) that the form, nature, or essence of man or of any other kind of being was taken to be a principle present in the thing, determining its kind by producing in it an innate tendency to strive to develop into a perfect example of itself--to fulfill its nature and to realize its full potential as a thing of a given kind. This gave rise to the teleological view of the natural world in which developments were explained by reference to the goal toward which each natural thing, by its nature, strives.

There have been many scientific discoveries that do not support a teleological view, and I think that Weinberg is talking about this from that point of view.

(a) The possible physical explanation of the presence of the universe and its evolution; a mathematical model starting from a quantum fluctuation, inflation and subsequent cooling of the universe, tends to explain many of the observed features of the universe.

(b) Developments in biology led to a refutation of most of the arguments of Kant. The genetic structure present in each cell is now invoked to explain the subsequent development of an organism in a ``mechanistic`` and nonpurposive way, in which development is shown to be dependent upon and determined by preexisting structures and conditions.

Also in evolutionary biological theory species are not stable; natural kinds do not have the fixed, immutable forms or essences characteristic of biology before the advent of evolutionary theory. This goes against the initial presuppositino of Aristotle about the presence of an innate essence of every entity, and its ordering in the known universe.

(c) The issue pf intelligence and rationality. Not only is the relative ranking of one race or sex with respect to others problematic, advances in the animal psychology indicate a presence of abilities in animals that were previously only considered to be human domain. Examples include language (gorillas, chimps, whales), counting (chimps, birds), problem solving (chimps, squid, dolphins), tool using (primates, dolphins), complex social structures and altruism.

(d) The success of the mechanistic view point that does not separate the human being and living matter from non-living matter, and provides a determined rule for explaining the rise of one from the other.

(e) The discovery of the scale of the universe, and given (d) the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe.

It appears then that Weinberg is echoing the sentiments of Herder. Herder denied the existence of any absolute and universally recognized goals. From this point of view, he has an interesting counterpart. Abdus Salam, in his essay, science and religion, (to which there is a link to in this essay), talks about these issues briefly also, and presents his own point of view. (Including his interpretation of creation).

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``.

Re: Wasiq, Reply 8

The quote is from ``The End of Science`` by John Horgan.

From what I understand, Weinberg did not say that in any context. That statement does not need context. His view is that It is pointless.

I missed YOUR view in your beat-around-the-bush reply. The fundamental question is Does Divinity exist in its own right, or it exists out of necessity? If the answer is the latter, then it is pointless.

Re: Wasiq

Steve Weinberg, the physicist, once said, ``the more we understand the universe, the more pointless it seems.``

I would like to know what you think of that statement.

Dear Shahbaz,

Can I suggest a book? ``The Structure of Scientific Revolutions`` by Thomas Kuhn. If you`ve read it, I would be curious to know what you think.

Dear Saad,

Very well said indeed. I am certainly of the persuasion, as yourself, that everything around us is a miracle. I recall Rumi -talking about miracles and their relation to a Divinity, he says: ``If the whole world was barren and desolate and there was nothing in it except for one small flower, I would take it as an incontrovertible evidence for God.`` One might even say that there is nothing external about a miracle. The recognition of a miracle is dependent on the capabilities of the observer itself.

I think that you said it very well, each ``discovery`` necessarily leads us to a new world, and presents us anew with the depths of our ignorance. Feynman, early on in his lectures, summarized it thus: ``We learn science today, so that we can unlearn it tomorrow``. The distinction between modelling and the underlying truth ... therefore, we must try to understand everything around us, and improve the methods by which we arrive at our ``truths``.

Whether or not this process will ever converge, I do not know. But I believe that the universe is inherently knowable, and unlike Kuhn I also believe that we get closer and closer to the underlying truth.

``Bashud undar purdah bazi-hayay pinhan ... gham makhor!`` (Hafez)

On a related note: Do you have an interest in what goes on at (say) The Santa Fe Institute?

Wasiq, my friend.

In deference to your chosen profession, allow me to quote Albert Einstein, who once said that there are only two ways to live your life. One is to believe that nothing is a miracle; the other is to believe that everything is a miracle. I am certainly of the latter persuasion and, glancing over your compilation of `facts that boggle the mind`, suspect that you might be, too. This is not to imply intellectual complacence, but rather to record one`s respect and awe for the majesty of the known universe and its contents. The development of the scientific method is far and away the best thing to come out of human civilization, but it is hard to deny that the more we know, the less we understand. If anything, however, this emerging reality makes it even more imperative that we persist with the traditions of rational inquiry, wherever they may lead. It is only common sense that the most difficult of challenges be tackled with the most powerful of tools.

Saad

The other day I was talking to a friend of mine, and somehow the subject gravitated towards ESP and the like. During and after the conversation, I was struck by the fact that we have a tendency to get conditioned even to extraordinary things around us. As a result one is always searching for ``exotic`` stuff. To me, being able to carry on a conversation with another person is far more interesting and miraculous than any fanciful or metaphysical construction.

Imagine this: What we eat becomes a functioning part of our bodies. So if I eat a banana today, then in a little while, its components and derivatives will become a part of my brain, and will contribute towards my consciousness. Inanimate matter becomes animate and then starts to question itself. If that is not a miracle I don`t know what else is.

Re: Anita

True, anyone who cares to think will find the world full of facts that boggle the mind. Here`re some more of my favorites:

(1) The net energy content of the ENTIRE universe may be zero. Then the whole universe sprang from nothing more than a quantum fluctuation.

(2) The human brain weighs in at only a few pounds, consumes small amount of energy and yet is the most powerful and plastic computing device in existence.

(3) That nature employing simple rules at a fundamental level gives rise to such an astonishing amount of complexity.

(4) That mathematics is a suitable language of the natural world. That mathematical concepts present a level of rigor and truth that is not achievable otherwise. That no science is truly a science until it can be formulated in mathematical terms.

(5) That quantum mechanics with all of its mind bending logic has been validated with each and every experiment ever performed. That it is possible for distant particles to be entangled with each other in such a way that one affects the other. That teleportation is actually possible.

(6) That the universe is so unimaginably big that no human myth of infinity even comes close. For all we know the universe we observe (about 12 billion light years across) may only be a tiny fraction of the whole universe.

(7) That small differences in genetic code can lead to immense differences in their phenotypic expression.

(8) That there exists the force of gravity which is a long range attractive force. That it combines with other forces to give us a shining sun, which in its due time dies and spews heavy elements into space, and that we arise from the ashes of the stars.

(9) That most of the universe around us is actually invisible to us. We only see a tiny fraction of what there is to see. That the possibilities of nature remain effectively limitless.

(10) There are a hundred billion stars in our galaxy, and there are perhaps as many as a hundred billion galaxies. And if only one star in a billion produced a thriving civilization, then there would be hundreds in our galaxy alone, and hundreds of billions in all the galaxies in the observable universe. If one star in a million produced life then there would be dozens of civilizations just in our cosmic neighbourhood.

(11) The one that you mentioned is one of these. I remember when I first learned about that seven years ago. The whole transition to an oxygen dominated world, the rise of the membrane and the oxygen metabolizing organisms, and their eventual symbiosis. That other similar ``gateway`` events open the list of possibilities for development. That the Replicator molecule arose. That encoding of genetic information arose. That the information persisted in a hostile environment. That the mutual competition between possibilities inevitably led to emergence of increasing complexity.

(12) That the arrow of time is well defined, and that it always flows in one direction. That simple counting of possibilities explains why time flows forward. That universe evolves through a set of possibilities at each and every time. That the transition between these time steps is random but on a macroscopic level this randomness is smoothed out.

(13) That the universe at its smallest scale is fraught with impossibilities and infinities, and that these are smoothed out at a macroscopic scale.

(14) That a human child learns to speak of its own accord. That it counts, recognizes and learns. That it carries the potential for all of that from the very first day of conception.

(15) That we have the ability to wonder, and that we have the desire to know. That we are mortals and yet our minds can be immortal.

(16) That the human (or animal body) with all of its complexity actually functions. That the successful designs for these bodies emerged, and that extremely clever solutions were found for the problems offered by nature.

The list is very very long ...

Dawkins - brilliant as usual.

There is true, unimaginable wonder in science. To contemplate the mysteries of life and universe - nothing is so awe-inspiring. Who said science is cold and impersonal?

Think of the little mitochondria that all of us have - the essential machinary of respiration, and then to realize that they represent bacteria that our ancestral cells ingested millions of years ago, to import the respiratory apparatus essential for us to breathe in a oxygen-rich environment - now there`s a fact to boggle the mind.

Anita