Q: You keep bringing up the term ‘unknowability’. I can understand there are things we do not yet know in science but you seem to mean something else. What exactly is the ‘unknowability’ you refer to?
A: Science’s reality consists of the ‘objectively knowable’. I believe ‘objectively knowable’ is only a subset of reality.
Q: You have got it wrong. Science doesn’t define reality as objectively knowable. Many things we know about the natural world today were considered ‘beyond human comprehension’ in the past. Progress happened only through the application of scientific method over centuries.
A: My point is ‘scientific objectivity’ is only one of the modes of comprehension at our disposal and it’s evolutionary history must be acknowledged. ‘Measurable’ becomes a subset of reality in a truly evolutionary world view.
Q: Science doesn’t insist on measurability. Position and velocity of an electron cannot me measured simultaneously. That doesn’t mean either position or velocity is unreal.
A: But this indeterminacy can be captured in a mathematical model. Isn’t that another form of measurement? I am referring to a fundamental unknowability beyond all forms of objective grasping.
Q: Hm.. Where does this ‘unknowability’ come from?
A: ‘Unknowable’ is a pointer to the state of existence before human evolution. There were no observers and no ‘things’ before meta-cognition evolved in human species. ‘Knower’ or the meta-cognitive function in humans began to emerge sometime around 200,000 years ago. Things came into existence through meta-cognitive knowing.
Q: Nature and its objects existed before humans evolved. What do you mean by ‘things came into existence through knowing’?
A: ‘Thing-ness’ dissolves in the absence of observers. Such an existence can only be described as ‘unknowable’ from the knower’s objective point of view.
Q: I don’t understand. What has ‘knowing’ got to do with the existence of things?
A: Did nature exist as a collection of ‘things’ before man? Isn’t the world of things a creation of the ‘knower’?
Q: I am not referring to representations created by human mind. Nature didn’t suddenly spring into existence 200,000 years ago!
A: We need to differentiate between nature as it existed before meta-cognition and nature as a collection of ‘things’.
Q: Why is that important?
A: It is crucial because meta-cognition (objective knowing) doesn’t reveal ‘nature as-it-is’.
Q: Meta-cognition evolved as a survival aid and not to show us nature as it really is. Solid objects are mostly empty space according to modern physics. In fact there are no solid objects in reality! Perceiving empty space instead of solid stuff would be a terrible disadvantage in the struggle for survival.
A: I will disagree. Humans evolved to see nature as it really is, but it is not the reality of modern physics. Nature ‘as it really is’ is a combination of quantities and qualities, the objective and subjective. Physics cannot claim to show us the true nature of reality as the unquantifiable is filtered out to generate objective representations.
Q: What exactly is different in the reality of a natural object, for example a mountain, with or without meta-cognitive observes? Countless species of plants and animals interacted with the same mountain for millions of years before human species evolved.
A: Was it always the same mountain? Does a human person and a bird see the same mountain?
Q: Why is the reality of the mountain dependent on how it is perceived? Wasn’t it the same mountain even without observers?
A: Science’s reality is the objectively knowable. A human person and a bird doesn’t see the same mountain. It is an objective entity for man but a subjective experience for birds.
Q: Do you accept there is an objective reality out there independent of perception?
A: Reality is neither objective nor subjective. We perceive it as objective (quantities) and subjective (qualities). Tools of comprehension evolved to help us live a meaningful life by knowing and experiencing. Science’s ‘objective reality out there’ is not fundamental, it is the consequence of a more foundational truth, evolution of meta-cognition.
Q: But there must be a reality beyond all perceptions! How do you describe it?
A: The question cannot be answered. What exists when no one is looking is the unknowable ‘thing-in-itself’.
Thing-in-itself
Q: I remember we discussed this earlier in the context of knower-nature relationship. But I am still not able to get a hold on this idea. What exactly is a ‘thing-in-itself’?
A: ‘Thing-in-itself’ is what is left in place of an object when all representations are stripped off, layer after layer. It is not a new type of substance, but ordinary things seen as they really are.
Q: What is the difference between an apple and ‘apple-in-itself’?
A: Difference lies in the way it is perceived. An apple is a familiar object with a name, properties and history. But it is possible to see an apple sidestepping all these representations, experience its color, smell and texture as if for the first time, without the burden of everything we know about apples.
Q: Why do you call such a ‘thing-in-itself’ unknowable?
A: Knowing is an act of de-mystification by the knower as we discussed earlier. Existence before knower is what is referred to as ‘thing-in-itself’.
Q: How can we talk about ‘thing-in-itself’ if it is unknowable?
A: It is possible if we accept a truly evolutionary worldview. Everything about man, including ‘knower’ (or rational mind), is a product of evolution. Objective knowing is a very recent phenomenon in the history of life. Universe did exist before man and ‘thing-in-itself’ refers to the state of existence before meta-cognition evolved.
Q: You mean ‘thing-in-itself’ is unknowable but can be the subject of pure experience?
A: Exactly. The act of knowing transforms ‘thing-in-itself’ into a thing, an object.
Q: Does that mean we can still access the ‘thing-in-itself’ by going beyond descriptions?
A: Yes. This is what happens when we look at the starlit sky and say ‘Aha!’. Such experience cannot be communicated objectively. We have to rely on metaphors to describe the experience of ‘thing-in-itself’.
Q: I am not convinced. You are assuming there is something about ordinary things other than objective descriptions.
A: That conclusion is inevitable if we accept evolution as the most fundamental fact about life. ‘Knower’ has a beginning in time. Its evolutionary history must be acknowledged.
Is knowledge timeless?
Q: I agree ‘knower’ emerged recently in evolutionary time scale. But this function did evolve, and as a consequence, we are able to generate knowledge about distant past. Isn’t such knowledge independent of knower’s evolutionary history? For example, chemical structure of water was discovered by Henri Cavendish in the year 1784, but a scientist today could analyse samples of ancient water from rock crevices deep underground and prove water had the same structure even a million years ago.
A: Chemical structure of water became an objective fact only after Cavendish. Before that it was just ‘water’, a liquid on which all life depended. If we go back further it didn’t even have a name, existing only as an experience. Objective knowledge must be recognized as a product of evolution. Failing to do that is a costly error.
Q: Okay, knowledge evolved with time. ‘Water’ was not a thing, only an experience before it was called ‘water’ for the first time. But how does it lead to unknowable fundamental substance? Why do you think the state of nature before languages evolved is the fundamental state?
A: This is a very important point. The fact that we are a product of biological evolution make things complicated. Science’s representation of reality is partial, valid but incomplete.
Q: Why partial? What is missing from science?
A: What do we mean by knowledge about the past? I know water is made of hydrogen and oxygen combined in 2:1 ratio. Suppose I travel 1 million years back in time. Will I still have this knowledge? Time travel appears exciting only when we assume retention of all our present knowledge. It is good fiction. But travelling back in time means retracing evolutionary development and the matter making up ‘me’ would dissolve into billions of atoms and be parts of trees, animals and dust! Earth surely existed and there were living things but no knower and no knowledge, only a continuum of dreamlike experience.
A geologist’s picture of the earth 1 million years ago is how the unknowable whole appears from present day vantage point. It is not how earth existed at that time.
Q: I vaguely feel you are driving at something, but do not see the need to differentiate between how earth actually existed 1 million years ago and our knowledge of it. Why does it matter?
A: We are assuming objective knowledge is timeless by asserting earth of 1 million years ago was exactly like the geologist’s representation. This is incorrect. It is the error at the root of all our civilizational malaises.
Q: Isn’t objective knowledge timeless? Aren’t fundamental laws of physics valid at all times, past and future?
A: Objective knowledge may be valid forever once generated. That doesn’t mean it is timeless. The validity extends into future, not past.
Q: You mean the law of gravitation came into existence with Newton? Earth did not attract the moon before 17th century?
A: Laws of physics are representations of something fundamental about the universe. But representations aren’t identical to the represented.
Q: No one is claiming a set of equations on the blackboard is identical to the universe of 1 billion years ago! The equations are understood as true and complete representations.
A: The equations are useful representations but to claim them as complete and timeless would be akin to denying the fact of evolution.
Q: Why? Evolution of the universe too is represented in the equations. What else is missing?
A: No representation can include its own origin story without being circular. The equations of physics cannot explain the origin of ‘knower’. Objective knowing is an evolutionary phenomenon with deep roots, going all the way down to pure subjectivity. Science has no place for subjectivity, therefore knowing itself becomes a mystery when seen objectively. Normally we bypass this mystery by assuming there is a ‘mind-stuff’ inside our material brain.
From knowable to the unknowable
Q: How is it ever possible to go beyond representations? You claim scientific knowledge doesn’t reveal nature as it really is yet science is the only path leading to the doors of the ‘unknowable’. How can science lead to the unknowable?
A: The fact of evolution must be taken as fundamental. It applies to everything about life, including man’s ability to generate reliable knowledge. The ‘act of knowing’ must be placed at the centre of enquiry instead of its output, objective knowledge. History of ‘knower’ in evolution becomes the key to understand life.
Q: We went through that before and I get it. But what is the connection between rational mind emerging from pure subjectivity and ‘unknowable fundamental substance’?
A: Let us see. The ‘knower’ began emerging perhaps 200,000 years ago and crossed a critical threshold about 8000 years ago, leading to the philosophically hyper active period sometime referred to as the ‘axial age’.
Q: Isn’t your timeline for ‘knower’ evolution same as rapid expansion of human neo-cortex studied by anthropologists?
A: It roughly coincides with the evolutionary expansion of brain, but brain expansion, or any kind of complexification of matter in itself is not sufficient to explain why we have knowledge. We must hypothesize a ‘knower’ to account for the phenomenon of objective knowledge (remember we have ruled out mind at the beginning). There isn’t any mind. Why should there be? All that exists is matter going through complex transformations , and suddenly man is able to generate reliable (objective) knowledge. A ‘knower’ has to be introduced as an explanatory device to account for knowledge generation.
Q: Hm.. that is very complex. Let me try to understand your argument. You want to stay true to physicalism because that is the only foundation we could stand on, as you keep repeating. Now you are trying to find a way to introduce ‘minds’ as a way to explain the fact that humans have the ability to ‘know’ objectively.
A: Yes. I would have preferred to make it simpler by assuming both matter & consciousness are real. But ‘consciousness-as-real’ is strictly not an objective fact. So I am forced to take a circuitous route, hypothesizing a ‘knower’. No physicalist can deny ‘knowledge’ is real, hence ‘knower’ must be real too. That would lead us to the unknowable subjective state of existence as discussed earlier.
Fundamental substance as unknowable
Q: You seem to say both matter and mind are real but un-related. Are you a dualist?
A: Treating both matter and mind as real is the most practical approach to comprehend reality. That doesn’t mean there are two distinct fundamental substances. Neither matter nor mind is fundamental.
Q: Hm. You said the unknowable is in a subjective state of existence. Does that mean some form of idealism?
A: No. All that we can say about the unknowable is it has both material and mental characteristics in our perception.
Q: Are you suggesting there is a third fundamental substance from which both matter and mind emerged?
A: No. I would say the fundamental substance is unknowable. We perceive it as dual because of our dependency on the ‘knower’.
Q: Isn’t it contradictory to say anything at all about the fundamental substance which you claim is unknowable?
A: ‘Fundamental substance is unknowable’ is not a knowledge claim. It is the logical consequence of accepting knowledge evolved with time. The world of representations is a human construct. Peel off the layers of knowledge accumulated over centuries, we arrive at a purely experiential realm of existence. This state is fundamental because it forms the base, the platform on which the entire superstructure of objective reality is constructed.
Q: Why do you think it is critical to acknowledge fundamental substance as unknowable? What difference does it make in the end?
A: I am not suggesting we should give up physicalism and go back to experiencing the ‘thing-in-itself’. That would be disastrous, but it is vitally important to acknowledge the history of objectivity. Where did the ‘knower’ come from? Failure to account for mind in physicalist terms is an unbridgeable gap in our thinking about the nature of reality. We must start our enquiry from this recognition.
Life flourished for millions of years as a subjective continuum before we arrived on the scene. Human race is getting carried away by the charm of representations, even to the extent of denying reality of phenomenal consciousness. We need to do a careful re-thinking of the nature or reality and our place in it to survive this crisis. Impartial observers from far distant future will conclude human obsession with objective representations was only a flash, a bolt from the blue that blinded everyone while it lasted.
Mind, Evolution and Meaning 