What is Science?...

Kalidas recently inquired:



Dear Friends



Are we referring to 'Science' defined by the 4 properties below?



Science - deduce a chain of reasons which can further recursively be broken
down to one of the 4 rules



1. Mass exists
2. Mass moves (speed limited to that of light)
3. One mass-particle attracts another
4. Two charges exists - they attract or repel



[Any additional property must only be added if not one of the above 4]



Entire biological system or present day technology is an 'emergent' property
of the above 4 rules.



How does it conflict with 'Consciousness ' ?



Are we asking regarding who the 'first observer' was despite being 'created
out of the observed'..?



Regards


Kalidas

Reply:



We have already dealt with what we mean by science in a previous post: http://groups.google.com/group/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/web/what-is-science



Your first “rule” that “mass exists” is already problematic even from the viewpoint of modern physics. There is currently no consistent definition of mass or matter considering what we know from advanced physics such as quantum theory, theory of general relativity, string theory, etc. Is mass a drag effect caused by the field of the Higgs boson, if it exists, or the cause or the effect of the curvature of Riemannian space-time, or is its true nature mysteriously concealed as dark matter. Even classically there are two concepts of mass: inertial mass (resistance to force) and gravitational mass (attractive force between masses). They are equivalent, but no theory exists to explain this peculiarity. Theories now exist that describe the universe in terms of pure activity without reference to mass or particles. This is reminiscent of the ancient philosopher Heraclitus who said that all is becoming and not being. Thus the concept of matter has been disputed philosophically since antiquity and that disputation is unabated to the present day. Aristotle did not even consider matter an independent substance. His idea was that matter was always codependent - the matter of something, i.e. of some form or kind. Thus mere flesh and bones can never describe a hand without knowing the essential determination of that ‘for the sake of’ which it exists. This idea is not found in any of the modern concepts of matter although there are relational concepts of matter being considered. And all this barely scratches the surface of this extremely complex subject.



I think we must understand the great importance of the critical investigation of scientific dogmatics, and it is equally important to understand that a scientific critique of science is also science. In the East, Vedanta (which seeks to know the absolute truth) advocates inquiry or critique, jijnasa - athato brahma jijnasa. In the West Socrates also admonished us: an unexamined life is not worth living. The intelligent critique of unexamined presuppositions of science, the willingness to dive deep into reality, may not be the path of a crowd pleaser who is content to repeat the patently manicured science lessons imbibed by a gullible schoolboy. But if we are really after Truth it is wise to first examine the historical, philosophical and scientific meaning of ideas like matter or mass before using them as a ground for establishing a basis for scientific knowledge. It would be like building a house on quicksand.



In fact, I consider this to be the main problem of modern science: it thinks it has solved the problems of philosophy by ignoring them. Quite expectedly this attitude has brought about a crisis that scientists now face at the frontiers of the numerous branches of science, whether in physics, astronomy, mathematics (e.g. Godel), biology, or artificial intelligence. In other words, the failure to deal with immanent ontological and epistemological problems must eventually lead to irresolvable paradoxes and confusions. And this is what is being experienced as science tries to refine itself. This is inevitable, and it is good, because this is one way that knowledge progresses.



Next. To claim that consciousness ‘emerges’ from matter is merely to give a name to an undefined and undemonstrated conviction. With equal conviction one can claim that matter emerges from consciousness. It is in fact much easier to understand that matter is a concept than to think that matter can produce consciousness, i.e. a concept of itself.



Consciousness is the immediate existence of a concept, in other words, a direct subjective experience. One can experience that they are conscious or have consciousness, which is effectively their implicit concept of the world. Consciousness is always consciousness of something, just as concept is always concept of a content, or matter is always matter of a form. If an objective content (matter as substance) can produce a concept of itself then it can no longer be considered material substance, because cognition is a characteristic attributable to what we call spirit. Matter refers to the content of a concept, not the concept itself. In an ultimate sense we can say that matter is undeveloped consciousness/concept, while consciousness fully developed knows itself to be spirit. But only when we recognize that matter represents implicit consciousness (in an undeveloped stage), can we then properly understand how a conscious observer is related to the observed.



The chief characteristic of life is consciousness or sentience, which philosophically considered is a determinate concept. Consciousness exists for every organism, because an organism is not simply an aggregate of material components, but is a material content organized and unified under an individual concept of its own. All consciousness intrinsically possesses free will or spontaneity, where ‘spontaneous’ implies it has no cause other than itself, and is thus free from any external or material causality. It is because of free will that the trajectory/behavior of a living organism cannot be simply determined using the laws of physics and chemistry. Thus although the path traced by material objects can be determined by such laws, Kant has said, “there can never be a Newton of a blade of grass.” At the same time, in order that freedom not be a mere formal or abstract ideality (i.e. whimsical, a self destructive anarchy that negates freedom) it must be actualized or realized in relation to necessity. Thus, for example, you remain a free citizen of the State if you follow the law, but loose your freedom if you violate it. So necessity is not contrary to freedom but essential to it. In the same way we may understand that the ideality of life requires the reality of a body in order to actualize itself.



Objects that are independent of each other do not have a unifying concept intrinsic to an aggregate of such objects as we do find in the members of an organisms. In an organism, its constituents exist for and are produced by the organism and each other, as much as they produce the organism. There is an existent internal unity present such that they are cause and effect of each other.



Independent material bodies such as we find in the solar system, are not held in unity by any intrinsic concept that constitutes that specific aggregate of bodies, but by the formally existing force of gravity which can equally act on any contingent set of bodies. A formal or abstract arrangement such as this is called mechanical. It is therefore categorically distinct from the existing intrinsic unity of the biological organism.



An organism is not a simple aggregate of independent bodies or parts, but its constituents are members of a unified whole. Unity is not external to the members but determines their intrinsic nature as members by their relationship to each other and the organism as a whole. The heart pumps blood for the maintenance of the body, but the body as a whole also provides for the maintenance of the heart. The intrinsic necessity that connects one part with another and with the whole cannot be explicitly set down as an external or formal law. It is already an internally existing unity that is not established by any externally or formally applied law. To use the suggestive Kantian terminology, the unity of an organism is a constitutive and not a regulative principle, whereas the unity of a mechanical system is a regulative and not a constitutive principle.



Another area besides mechanism in which the regulative principle of law is applicable is the unity of the free citizens of a State. Here again we have entities whose otherwise contingent (free) or independent nature is controlled by laws. But, of course, in the case of free citizens of the State we also have to consider their intrinsic moral nature by which the laws are not only established but by which they also derive their effectiveness or are followed.


--
----------------------------
Group Homepage: http://mahaprabhu.net/sadhusanga