The Limits of Science

[mgb]

The limits of science.

1. The primitive.

Science is primitive in that it studies only primitive things; how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through physical systems, how spacetime is shaped and so on.
Given this limitation the rationality that emerges from science remains primitive if it stays within the sphere of materialism because matter is primitive.

With respect to the assertion of primitivism, 'evolved' would pertain to the personal; the mystery of being, life, consciousness, creativity, intelligence and the reality of the person.

To argue that the mystery of being and the reality of the person can be encompassed by the primitive rationale of science is like saying literature can be encompassed by the primitive logic of Boolean algebra. It is hardly feasable.

The rationale of science has not made any progress in addressing the mystery of being and of the person and the argument that these phenomena are within the domain of science, is an article of faith, rather than a realistic reflection of the realm of science.

2. Properties and emergence.

In earlier times it was thought that the classical (physical) universe held within itself, the explanation for its own existence. This idea was shattered with the advent of quantum mechanics which shows that the classical system is an emergent property of the foundational quantum spacetime of energy. The cause of the classical universe is outside it. In this respect, science does not explain the classical universe, it describes it. A causes B is a description of what is happening. What A and B really are would constitute an explanation.

Quantum reality has not fared any better. There are mathematical descriptions of what is happening (astoundingly accurate in many cases) but what it is that is happening and what makes it happen is as opaque as ever. What energy is, and why it behaves as it does, is a mystery and until that mystery is resolved there are only relative explanations or descriptions, in scientific understanding. No doubt, a large part of this problem concerns the fact that there is no logical reason as to why the laws of nature are what they are, since they are, or seem to be, contingent. Any ultimate explanation must address the phenomena of existence and being. What are existence and being?

3. Being

Our sense of being is the most precious and evolved aspect of human experience and it is completely outside the realm of science. It is hard to see how it can be reduced to material descriptions. A neuroscientist puts his finger on a thing and says 'we are nothing more than' (meaning a collection of neurons etc). But the thing under his finger must be interpreted and this is not easy; at all times the dictum 'Correlation is not causation' must be observed. Just because A and B are found together does not automatically mean that A causes B (there may be an unknown C, such that C causes A and C causes B). Just because neural activity is associated with thought does not mean it creates thought.

An analogy would be an internet page on a computer screen. If someone, not knowing what the internet is, decides to examine the situation he may look at the various systems and sub systems in the computer and learn that these systems are, somehow, making the page appear on screen. He can get into quite a bit of detail with this and eventually come to the conclusion that the computer has created the page, as well as the meaning of the words on the page. Every thread of his rationale tells him that the page originated in the computer and, while there is some truth in this (the computer organizes the page to be displayed) he has gone too far if he becomes convinced that the computer wrote the page and produced it in its entirety. In reality the page was broadcast from a remote server and the meaning in its text was created by a human mind.

Likewise with thought and the brain. The brain organizes many things, but it does not think. At least science has not shown that it does and any 'evidence' going in this direction can be subtly misleading.

4. Intellect and intelligence

Intellect and intelligence are not the same. Intelligence is a creative understanding that is a faculty of the conscious mind and of being. Intellect is an instrument of the intelligence. For example, creative intelligence in art, music, literature and the conscious apprehension of other minds and of being, is far more than reductive intellect. Science, for the most part, is dependent on the intellect, which is primitive, because intellect is essentially reductive. (It may be that the intellect evolved to test and to organize the flow of experiences as they come to us through our senses; to examine and grasp the logic of everyday physical experience.) The best science is when the intellect is imbued with the higher creative intelligence of the mind. But it is hard to see how it can work the other way; how intellect can inform intelligence, except by the most complicated philosophical routes.

Science relies on the intellect to discern the patterns that are behind physical reality. This bringing into focus the patterns behind physical appearances, is the essence of science.

Equally, the creative intelligence discerns the patterns behind the world of conscious experience. In this respect, the intelligence, in discerning the order and patterns in the word of being, is to being what the intellect is to science.
That is, the intellect in relation to material world, is as the intelligence is in relation to the world of being and consciousness.
Both are concerned with comprehending the order of the world, on different levels.

5. Proof

Some materialists seem to argue that only things that can be proved are admissable as elements of a world view. This view has proven to be misguided, as the failure of Logical Positivism shows. Also, there are things that are true that are not proved. For example, radio waves were not part of the world of things proved during the Middle Ages. Yet they were as real then as they are now. How one would form a world view based on proved things during the Middle Ages, is hard to see. Yet we exist in a world today where things proved are seen to be sufficient as a foundation for a world view. This cannot be adaquate. Firstly, because things proved will always only be a small subset of all truth. Secondly because proof, in the absolute, or near absolue, sense is only in terms of primitive truths; material relations and mathematical relationships.

This subset of primitive proved truths is hardly sufficient to address onthological questions concerneing the nature of being and consciousness. This means that a world view that emerges from a subset must be on very shaky ground because it does not contain unproved things that are true. A dramatic example is how the finitude of facts concerning the classical universe led scientists to believe that a whole world view could be constructed from those facts. As it turns out, facts about the classical universe are, in reality, only concerned with emergent properties (matter) of the mysterious quantum world.

Equally, Hilbert's attempts to formalize all mathematics and put it on a firm footing, were destroyed by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. Mystery leads to the appearance of certainty and certainty is undermined by the very investigations that establish it.

And still, the world of life, being, creativity, consciousness - the highest points of the evolution of the universe - remain as elusive as ever.

[Neatras]

The limits of science.

1. The primitive.

Science is primitive in that it studies only primitive things; how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through physical systems, how spacetime is shaped and so on.
Given this limitation the rationality that emerges from science remains primitive if it stays within the sphere of materialism because matter is primitive.

With respect to the assertion of primitivism, 'evolved' would pertain to the personal; the mystery of being, life, consciousness, creativity, intelligence and the reality of the person.

To argue that the mystery of being and the reality of the person can be encompassed by the primitive rationale of science is like saying literature can be encompassed by the primitive logic of Boolean algebra. It is hardly feasable.

The rationale of science has not made any progress in addressing the mystery of being and of the person and the argument that these phenomena are within the domain of science, is an article of faith, rather than a realistic reflection of the realm of science.

Claim: The rationale of science has not made any progress in addressing the mystery of being and of the person and the argument that these phenomena are within the domain of science, is an article of faith, rather than a realistic reflection of the realm of science.

Rebuttal: Science has made a lot of progress examining consciousness. So claiming it has made "no" progress in addressing the "mystery of being" is false. Moreover, despite your claims that it's primitive, or that it's not capable of ever solving the "mystery," we both know that scientific experimentation and theory aren't going to just move out of the way and let... mysticism take over. It really doesn't matter how little stock you put in science when it comes to consciousness, with each passing day we unlock new abilities and new knowledge that make your claims untenable.

How long before we are able to start using physical processes to alter the minds of people? Wait, we're doing that.

How long before we are able to start using physical processes to simulate religious experiences? Wait, we're doing that.

How long before we are able to start using physical processes to simulate a conscious being? Dunno, but you claiming that it will never happen isn't really convincing in light of everything else. Do you really think that scientists will forever be stuck at their current level of explanatory power for consciousness? Do you have any evidence for why they will somehow fail to produce any new evidence that consciousness is a physical process from literally this point on, discounting all the progress made between now and when the scientific method was developed?

This is what I don't get about theists. They act like science is just sitting still, twiddling thumbs. But the entire point of science is that it makes progress using built-upon knowledge. Just because mysticists can't and won't demonstrate any evidence for their claims doesn't mean science is defunct or insufficient. It means mystics need to step up their game and actually contribute something so science can keep making progress. But you can't... Can you?

"They will never find evidence of transitional fossils."
"They will never make progress in explaining consciousness."
"They will never..." Such arrogant claims, like any day now we're going to "run out" of discoveries. And when we continue making discoveries, you sweep it under the rug and pretend it's irrelevant because it makes the argument you're making here seem disingenuous. You're obligated by your own biases to make these claims, and you're obligated to use any rhetorical tactic you have to excuse, dismiss, or ignore contrary evidence. How are we supposed to take this seriously? It's not like theists can let science take over, so in our view, you're just another self-appointed gatekeeper. Scientists let the religious declare authority over the "spirit" or mind because they were busy developing theories that explain how the universe works.

Now, scientists have decided to turn their attention to consciousness. It's not religion's model of mystery anymore, from now on scientists will discover more than any theist could ever hope to know about consciousness.

[Aetixintro]

[Replying to post 1 by mgb]

"Can a true world view emerge from science?"

I'd say yes! Of course!
However, the World is different now than 1000 years ago.
Now, we have Global Positioning System and computers and internet and scientific method (HDM) to help us. Global web cameras are also coming to you at (virtual) speed of light.

Eventually, by science and by (f)MRI confirmation, we (or future generations, at least) will start to experience the World as souls together.

That's as fundamental as science can get. "The future will offer wonders to humanity, way beyond Planet Earth!"

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 2 by Neatras]

This is what I don't get about theists. They act like science is just sitting still, twiddling thumbs.

Perhaps because that is how their religion works. The whole story is contained in their holy book, allegedly unchanged from when it was first written. The sacred words of a deity are not amenable to change. The best they can do is warp and twist the interpretation of what was written in response to contradictory evidence.

[mgb]

Science has made a lot of progress examining consciousness.

I advised the dictum 'Correlation is not causation' should be observed. All science has done is to show that thought and emotion are associated with the brain. But mere association does not really explain what consciousness is. These neurological experiments don't come anywhere near an explanation. Note the example in the OP concerning an internet page on a computer. You don't imagine this post was created by your computer, do you ?

How long before we are able to start using physical processes to alter the minds of people? Wait, we're doing that.

How long before we are able to start using physical processes to simulate religious experiences? Wait, we're doing that.

Altering minds is, in terms of the analogy, no different to altering the display on screen, of an internet page. This is basic and explains nothing about how the page was written.

Religious experiences? I doubt that they are religious experiences.

but you claiming that it will never happen isn't really convincing in light of everything else. Do you really think that scientists will forever be stuck at their current level of explanatory power for consciousness?

It is an article of faith that it will explain consciousness. Sometimes people say that only what is proved is admissable as evidence but then they jump to unproved things. It is hard to keep up at times with what people think and say they think. Are we in the land of proved things or the land of faith in things to be proved?

This is what I don't get about theists. They act like science is just sitting still, twiddling thumbs.

I certainly don't assert that science is sitting still. I have been reading science since I was a young teenager and I have respect for it. But science is science; dogma and speculation are something else. Consciousness is not just a manifestation of the five senses. Minds can think abstractly; I think, therefore I am. What is 'I'? Logical Positivism collapsed because it could not answer this question.

Perhaps because that is how their religion works. The whole story is contained in their holy book, allegedly unchanged from when it was first written.

To say the 'whole story' is contained in one book is like saying the whole of science is contained in one book. It just doesn't work that way. Albert Camus said of Simone Weil that she was the only great spirit of the twientieth century (he was, I believe, speaking in philosophical terms). And she is only one writer. Religion evolves, just like science.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]

To say the 'whole story' is contained in one book is like saying the whole of science is contained in one book.

Not at all. Take Yahweh and Jesus. Everything we know about them is contained in the Bible. All else is just conjecture. There is no new information being gathered. It is all just modification and interpretation of the extant text. Science, or more appropriately the scientific method, is a process by which we gather and evaluate information about our universe. The resulting body of knowledge is recorded in an ever expanding library which is hardly one book.

Religion evolves, just like science.

Religions evolve as people discard old versions of gods in favour of newer, more user-friendly versions. Specific religions evolve by virtue of splinter groups arguing about the correct interpretation of their holy text. Rituals change along with the focus of the dogma. None of it stems from any investigation leading to new evidence concerning their gods and associated supernatural entourage. It is hard to see how the scientific method evolves. As new knowledge is gained, theories may be modified, improved or possibly discarded in favour of better ones. Nevertheless, the process essentially remains the same.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]

Religion is compelled to constantly evolve to overcome discrepancies with scientific discoveries. When a myth is proven to be false, it's moved to "allegory."

Religion has become impotent in explaining anything about the world, and is pushed out of everything except the thinly veiled mysticism you promote. Scientists are continuing to make advances, and so the god of the gaps shrinks again and again.

I'll wait for you to provide me some material wherein the scientific method was shown to be the worse method when comparing two methodologies for solving a problem.

Religion turned out to be a bust when it came to medicine. Science demonstrated that.

Religion turned out to be a bust when it came to astronomy. Science demonstrated that.

Religion turned out to be a bust when it came to anything physical, which is why you had to label all of that as primitive. You've drawn a line in the sand that's been redrawn by countless theists over the years, yet you think your boundaries are based on anything other than reactionary contrarianism to how much ground religions et al have lost over the centuries. What little scraps of mystery you cling to aren't being solved by religion, that's for sure. No consistent results, no competent explanations that hold up to scrutiny. So scrutiny, consistency, methodology are all declared "primitive."

If I wanted to develop a system that protected lies with extreme efficiency, I think I would borrow some of the rhetoric you used. I can make any claims I want, and just declare all other sources of knowledge too primitive to understand.

My point is simple: I don't think you're lying, per se. I think that your rhetoric is one that any liar can use, and this means that we have to have some kind of methodology to overcome shifty rhetoric. That's science. Religion can't compare anymore.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 5 by mgb]

Consciousness is not just a manifestation of the five senses.

And who claims that it is? The five senses describe physical inputs to the brain that we call sight, sound, smell taste and touch. We understand how each of these "senses" work via the physical mechanisms that they entail, from (to take sight as an example) light entering the lense of the eye to its focus on the retina to the electrical signals generated there which are carried by the optic nerve to the visual cortex, where the signals are processed by the brain to create the perception of an image. I've never seen anyone claim that some combination of these 5 senses is responsible for consciousness. The brain is a very complex system, and involves far more than just the 5 senses. For example, memory is not one of the 5 senses but it is certainly heavily involved in overall brain function and consciousness.

No one has yet demonstrated that consciousness is NOT a manifestation of normal brain activity, ie. the result of very complex interactions of neuronal activity, memory, etc. Your claim that is isn't, or can't be, is just an unsupported assertion falling into the god of the gaps category. As pointed out by others, science continues to make progress in elucidating the mechanisms underlying brain activity and its emergent properties like consciousness, and until there is some kind of evidence to suggest that consciousness is not purely an emergent property of the brain the default position should be that it is. Invoking some mysterious, supernatural component is just unnecessary, and unjustified, hand-waving.

Minds can think abstractly.

Yes, but this in no way implies a supernatural component to the process. There are something like 100 billion neurons in a human brain and ten times that many glial cells. It is estimated that exascale computing capability is necessary to model even basic functions of this complicated system. Abstract thought can simply be one of the capabilities of such a complex system of interacting parts, and just because science cannot yet write down the exact mechanism of something it does not follow that there must be a nonphysical component involved. Again, god of the gaps reasoning.

If you look at brain development in animals, from a simple worm to a human, the complexity in structure and in capability has evolved over hundreds of millions of years. The human brain currently represents the most complex of such systems that has evolved to date (by far), and it is about 80% neocortex. I think what a lot of theists latch onto in terms of trying to justify a supernatural component to consciousness is the relative intelligence level of humans compared to, say, our great ape ancestors. But if you look at brain size and the "intelligence" level of our direct line (genus homo), these clearly both underwent gradual increases from Homo habilis to modern Homo Sapiens, and was not some sudden appearance of the large, modern human brain with all of its capabilities. This suggests that abilities like abstract thought along with the other aspects of our consciousness slowly developed over evolutionary time, supporting the idea that our relative intelligence level compared to the great apes or other mammals was nothing more than an evolutionary process driven by the advantages this intelligence provided. No reason to believe that there was any supernatural component involved, or that consciousness is more than a manifestation of the complex interactions of the physical components of the brain.

[William]

[Replying to post 1 by mgb]

The limits of science.

1. The primitive.

Science is primitive in that it studies only primitive things; how atoms are joined together, how energy flows through physical systems, how spacetime is shaped and so on.
Given this limitation the rationality that emerges from science remains primitive if it stays within the sphere of materialism because matter is primitive. ...

I think you are referring to Scietism rather than science.

Also, the fact of life on earth relative to both the current age of the universe and its estimated 'shelf-life' means that we humans are basically like new-borns, and thus our knowledge base and understanding is going to naturally reflect that position.
I suppose calling it (Science the process and Scietism) as 'primitive' is only fitting since primates (The Great Apes) are currently in the drivers seat, and our collective position is still very much a primate one.

What are existence and being?

This is something of a question for the Department of Philosophy as the Department of Science can only describe existence as it is and probe as to how it evolved using the stuff of existence (primarily found on earth) to do the probing on. The being part is simply interpreted to emerge from the effects of electricity and chemical reactions, coupled with a device which can allow for the ability to insert the being into its external setting in a more hands on manner than a brain in a jar could achieve.

3. Being

Our sense of being is the most precious and evolved aspect of human experience and it is completely outside the realm of science.

I don't think it is completely, but understand your underlying implication.

It is hard to see how it can be reduced to material descriptions. A neuroscientist puts his finger on a thing and says 'we are nothing more than' (meaning a collection of neurons etc). But the thing under his finger must be interpreted and this is not easy; at all times the dictum 'Correlation is not causation' must be observed. Just because A and B are found together does not automatically mean that A causes B (there may be an unknown C, such that C causes A and C causes B). Just because neural activity is associated with thought does not mean it creates thought.

Essentially scientism has rules which prohibit wandering off into dark hallways of unmeasurable constructs and for good enough reason. Science is not supposed to be able to do such things, by the very nature of what science IS meant to do.
Scientism tends toward the temptation to claim science proves that 'GOD is dead' as a common catch-phrase used (or derivatives of) but that is just humanism over-extending itself as usual. Practitioners of Scientism are apes after all and while their expression sometimes gives out the impression they are self-regarded as the greatest of the great apes, one need keep such in perspective. It is a human weakness to overstate, but it is not something that only scientism expresses of itself. Practically all human societies practice this kind of silliness.

Likewise with thought and the brain. The brain organizes many things, but it does not think. At least science has not shown that it does and any 'evidence' going in this direction can be subtly misleading.

Sincerely;

IF:

Consciousness is indeed emergent of the brain...

THEN:

There will be no life after death.

Now tell me...how is science to be used as a device which can ascertain without doubt that the individuals consciousness ceases to exist once the brain/body is dead?

In the mean time, science is a process and the scientist has a job to do and that is not to tell anyone "GOD is dead' or "There is no afterlife" because there is no way to tell.

Scietism makes such assertions, but that is the 'cult' within the overall structure and need not be confused with science as a process or with scientists who generally know better than to make such assertions.

My own position on such matters is that I discover for myself as best I am able who I am and what 'being' means for me. My subjective experience trumps both scientism and organised religion in regards to contrary explanations either faculty choose to present me as argument against said experiences.

In that, I am certainly not adverse to hearing their opinions on the subject, but through my life to date, none so far have provided anything more comprehensive and coherent than what I have so far discovered for myself, and what I have discovered for myself is using the same primitive information available at this stage of the universes birth stages as these sectors of human society are using, only I use them without those types of discrimination coming from those sectors and waging war against my subjective experiences, and this effectively allows me more scope for that.

By that, I am currently most persuaded that GOD is not what organised religion would have me believe, and that I will still experience being, even after leaving this mortal shell.

4. Intellect and intelligence...

Science is only able to observe the interaction between consciousness and the material. How that is interpreted is well...open to interpretation. Science as a process is not about interpreting.

Science can be used to observe the working of the brain-body in relation to intelligence and intellect but cannot be used to form opinions, conclusions, etc which are remiss of evidence to support any such expressions scientism throws out into the external world.

The best scientists can do is to say 'it looks like', which is oft confused with 'it is' when passed through the filtering lens of scientism.

5. Proof

Some materialists seem to argue that only things that can be proved are admissable as elements of a world view. This view has proven to be misguided, as the failure of Logical Positivism shows. Also, there are things that are true that are not proved. For example, radio waves were not part of the world of things proved during the Middle Ages. Yet they were as real then as they are now. How one would form a world view based on proved things during the Middle Ages, is hard to see. Yet we exist in a world today where things proved are seen to be sufficient as a foundation for a world view. This cannot be adaquate. Firstly, because things proved will always only be a small subset of all truth. Secondly because proof, in the absolute, or near absolue, sense is only in terms of primitive truths; material relations and mathematical relationships.

I think while the argument does have a certain validity, it can and is also argued that organised religion has used the same type of approach in regard to making misguided assertions in relation to ideas of GOD and afterlife.

Essentially, how can primates use primitive positions - which we are all still literally in the 'time zone' of in relation to the present age of the universes unfolding - 'limits' are simply naturally there but our tendency as primates is to overextend ourselves in an effort to appear smarter than we really are which in itself is overcompensation induced by our individual and collective actual position of natural ignorance...just as we prefer being clothed, we prefer not to be seen as 'ignorant' so we tend to make things up as we go along and assert things as 'the truth of the matter' rather than 'our opinion of the matter'...which - given the fact that we are individuals who will die before we know everything, tends to help that overstepping - jumping to conclusions - reaction along.

All in all , yes 'the limits of science' but more-so 'the limits of human primates' or the 'children' thereof. Just yesterday I was contemplating this overcompensation and wondering if a good deal of our collective problem is that we take ourselves and everything a tad/far too seriously and need to relax on that and see the funny side of our collective situation.

[mgb]

Scientism tends toward the temptation to claim science proves that 'GOD is dead'

Neitzsche originally made this claim about religious belief. He warned that it was a dangerous thing for a society to abandon belief in case the world would descend into the 'will to nothingness'. His words have been very prophetic.

IF:

Consciousness is indeed emergent of the brain...

THEN:

There will be no life after death.

Now tell me...how is science to be used as a device which can ascertain without doubt that the individuals consciousness ceases to exist once the brain/body is dead?

It can't but you would think it has already done so given the kind of rhetoric some of the new atheist writers employ. People like Dawkins want to destroy religion.

Essentially, how can primates use primitive positions - which we are all still literally in the 'time zone' of in relation to the present age of the universes unfolding - 'limits' are simply naturally there but our tendency as primates is to overextend ourselves in an effort to appear smarter than we really are

When I say scientific knowledge is primitive I don't mean this in biological terms. I mean it in terms of how knowledge and logic are structured. Logic, chess, mathematics etc are at the most basic level of thought. Conscious, creative intelligence is at the highest level.