Q: How is science related to this ‘spectrum of knowledge’?
A: ‘Objective knowing’ is the latest addition to the spectrum. It is a powerful tool to unravel hidden patterns in the behaviour of matter through observation and measurement.
Q: You said earlier objective knowledge is limited in scope yet science is key to the problem of life. How is that possible?
A: Scientific knowledge is reliable but ‘shallow’ in the sense it is not capable of answering life’s meaning and purpose questions. Science is the knower’s interpretation of reality. Ironically, science alone can help us in this journey even though the final goal is outside its scope.
Q: How can ‘shallow’ knowledge lead to something beyond its scope?
A: We must follow the path of reason and travel further from shallow grounds of objective certainty.
Q: This is where I fail to follow you. Are you suggesting rational arguments will lead us from scientific objectivity to some kind of transcendental truth?
A: Not exactly. We should remain objective and realistic at the same time. There isn’t anything supernatural or otherworldly about this suggestion. ‘Measurable’ is only a subset of ‘Real’.
Is Real = Objectively knowable?
Q: What exactly do you we mean by ‘real’?
A: ‘Real’ in science means ‘measurable’. Beyond that is pure experience. There is no way to describe reality beyond the measurable, except using metaphors.
Q: Hmm… ‘measurable’ means having a well-defined mass, velocity etc.?
A: Physical properties such as mass, velocity and charge are measurable. Measurement can also mean ‘expressing in the language of mathematics’. For example, physicists can write down equations describing a new kind of particle and it can be considered real. Of course the final stamp of reality in science comes from measurement, direct or indirect.
Q: Why is measurability so important?
A: That is the only way different observers could reach agreement. In addition, conceptual models based on observation and measurement enables us to predict the future course of events.
Q: Well, then shouldn’t we apply this criteria of measurability universally to define ‘real’? Why not learn from science and remove ambiguity regarding what it means to be real?
A: That would be terrible. Measurement is valuable but life is much more than the measurable.
Q: You are again drifting into poetry! Why do you claim ‘life is much more than the measurable’?
A: We should go into the meaning of ‘measurement’ to answer that question. What exactly is measurement? For example, when I measure the height of this wall as three meters?
Q: Measurement depend on a universally agreed ‘unit’. It is ‘meter’ in this case. Length measurement involves counting how many units is any given distance.
A: Any measurement is a sort of counting in terms of a pre-agreed reference unit. This is the way to eliminate the subject, the person doing the counting, from measurement process. But then what about be the length of the unit, ‘meter’?
Q: Of course it is 1.
A: But that is a trivial answer. The concept of measuring length itself is based on accepting certain length as the unit (1 meter). ‘Length of a meter rod’ doesn’t give us any additional information. Meter is the reference upon which all length measurements are based.
Q: Measuring the unit itself always gives us the trivial answer!
A: Objective knowing can be seen as a process of ‘veiling’. Representations are created by covering up the ‘thing-in-itself’ and its behavioural patterns. The act of covering up is administered by ‘knower’ aka rational mind. Mind itself becomes unknowable for this reason. The measuring unit cannot be measured and the agency responsible for veiling cannot cover up itself.
Q: I don’t understand.
A: Let us unpack it step by step. ‘Real’ in science means ‘objectively knowable’. So let us construct a model for the process of ‘objective knowing’ in order to find out how we came to equate real with knowable. This is what we did with the ‘knower as a black box‘ hypothesis. It is essential to build such a model because ‘objective knowing’ involves ‘minds’ and we have no clue what minds are.
Q: Well, why do we have to go through all these? What is wrong with ‘Real = Objectively knowable’?
A: Because that would mean knowledge itself is unreal. We explained how objective knowing grew out of a primitive subjective substratum in previous sections. The whole façade of scientific knowledge is built on a subjective foundation. The façade is real (because it is reliable), so the foundation has to be real.
Q: Okay, you are saying the definition of reality as ‘objectively knowable’ is not acceptable.
A: Objectively knowable is a subset of reality. Phenomenal consciousness is the foundation on which the superstructure of objective knowledge is constructed.
Science and consciousness
Q: If science is the path to reliable knowledge, why not let scientists work it out? They might stumble a bit in their search but will ultimately arrive at the true nature of reality.
A: Philosophers of science should address a huge gap before that could happen. ‘Objective knowing’ is impossible without ‘mind’ but mind itself has no place in the picture of reality constructed out of such knowledge. It makes absolutely no sense. We should go back to the beginning of scientific thinking to understand the mystery of missing minds.
Q: You forget scientific facts are objective. Mind is involved in generating knowledge but knowledge, once generated, is independent of minds.
A: Where did objectivity come from if not from primitive subjectivity? My complaint is about science’s failure to account for subjectivity. This was discussed when we went through the history of ‘knower’.
Q: Ok, how do we proceed with understanding consciousness?
A: There must be a reason why consciousness is such a hard nut to crack. Let us dig in to the history of science to find out.
Q: I am eager to see how history is going to help us here!
A: Let us be clear about the meaning of ‘consciousness’ before we talk about history. Imagine you are looking at the tree outside your window. What does the ‘conscious experience of a tree’ mean? A neuroscientist can probe your brain and record electrical impulses corresponding to ‘tree experience’. Is such a recording identical with your ‘tree experience’?
Q: No, it is only a representation of my experience. Another person looking at the recording will not have the same ‘tree experience’. I myself coming across this recording days later may not recognize it. I don’t think anyone is making such a claim.
A: Well, then what is a conscious experience if not its representation?
Q: Conscious experience is subjective to the experiencer. I know what it is in ‘having the experience’, but cannot show it to another person.
A: Do you think such subjective experiences have any relevance? It may be just chemical noises from the complex process in the neurons. Can we ignore the noise and focus on the signal, excitations recorded by the neuroscientist?
Q: How can chemical noise feel like a tree? Humans evolved to have subjective experience in addition to electrical impulses in neurons. Subjectivity is the essence of being human. I don’t think any serious person would argue subjective experience is just noise.
A: Can we agree subjective experiences, apart from representations of them, are real?
Q: Of course. I am not hallucinating when I look at the tree outside. My experience of the tree is as real as real can be.
A: But this reality cannot be communicated to another person!
Q: It can be communicated by making representations. I can describe it to another person in words. I can draw a picture to represent my subjective experience. If that is not enough I can invite the person to go out and take a look at the tree… to have his/her own tree experience.
A: None of your representations are scientifically acceptable because they leave lots of space for ambiguity. Descriptions can be further refined but there is no way to communicate experience exactly as it is. Whatever communicated objectively is a representation, different from experience itself.
Beginning of modern science
Q: Is it right to say science requires sort of ‘sterilized’ representations?
A: Philosophers have distinguished between primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are objectively describable (mass, speed etc.) and secondary qualities are experienced as subjective (such as color, taste etc.). Scientific revolution started by overlooking un-representable secondary qualities. Color is represented as a number corresponding to its wavelength. Subjective experience of color has no place in science.
Q: You mean this was a mistake?
A: It is useful to distinguish between primary and secondary qualities for practical purposes. The mistake lies in treating secondary qualities as unreal. Measurability cannot be the criterion for reality.
Q: How did science come to ignore the reality of secondary qualities?
A: Man has been engaged in the struggle to unlock nature’s secrets for centuries. Ancient civilizations in Mesopotamia, India, China and Greece made remarkable discoveries but then the progress stalled. Philosophers struggled to account for qualities and purpose in natural phenomena, in addition to measurable physical quantities. The idea of a transcendental reality was intertwined with physical reality. This was a huge stumbling block. Measurable quantities and non-measurable qualities had to be separated and treated differently. A drastic change of course was necessary.
Mind-matter division
Q: The change of course began with scientific revolution in 16th century?
A: Yes. Galileo established mathematics as the language of science and Descartes re-imagined matter and mind as two distinct substances. Scientists made rapid progress with the study of matter while philosophers tied themselves in knots attempting to grasp the essence of mind-substance.
Q: Are you suggesting such division was a mistake? Secondary qualities should have remained as subjects of scientific enquiry?
A: Mind-matter division was essential for acquiring reliable knowledge. It was a crucial step forward in man’s quest to understand the nature of reality.
Q: Why was the mind-matter division a necessary step?
A: Consider an analogy. Algebraic equations such as x – 1 = 0 are easy to solve. The unknown x equal to 1 is an obvious solution. This is not the case for higher degree polynomials. For example, x2 + x + 1 = 0 looks unsolvable. There aren’t any natural number solutions for this equation.
Q: Solving quadratic equations need a bit more work, but it is not difficult.
A: It was a tough challenge for a long time. Mathematicians in 16th century came up with the concept of complex numbers to solve such equations. Complex numbers have of two parts, real and imaginary. Real part is a natural number but imaginary part isn’t. Imaginary numbers have no correlates in the world of experience. They cannot be grasped in the sense we understand natural numbers.
Q: That is an interesting way to describe imaginary numbers. I agree imaginary numbers are very much real in mathematics. If we think about how we ‘experience’ numbers, real and imaginary numbers are entirely different.
A: Comprehending reality is like solving algebraic equations. Simple problems have self-evident solutions but complex problems need a different approach.
Q: You mean science could progress from simple to complex problems only after measurable and non-measurable were separated like what mathematicians did with real and imaginary numbers?
A: Yes. Inquisitive minds struggled for centuries to penetrate nature’s secrets. Reliable knowledge could be acquired only after natural philosophers began treating the solutions as having two parts- material & mental, analogous to the real & imaginary parts of a complex number.
Q: Well, then how did we end with some philosophers doubting the reality of consciousness?
A: Let us stretch the complex number analogy a bit more. As said earlier, complex numbers have two parts, real and imaginary. ‘Real’ numbers are easy to grasp. Think about groups of familiar objects – three apples, five birds etc. we get the idea a real number.
Q: How about imaginary numbers?
A: Think of a 2-dimensional number plane. You get an imaginary number by rotating a real number by 90 degrees.
Q: Hm… nothing happens to my two apples when I rotate them 90 degrees. They still remain two real apples!
A: Mathematicians treat ‘rotated number’ as a different kind of number. Imaginary but real! Physical countability isn’t a factor because ‘number’ is an abstract concept. In contrast, Science is fundamentally about concrete stuff. Abstraction is a tool used to increase its effectiveness but there is a limit to abstraction in science before its connection to reality break down.
Q: To stretch the analogy further, while mathematics had no problem with ‘rotated real numbers’ (aka imaginary numbers), science could not stomach ‘rotated matter’ (aka mind)?
A: You get the idea. This was not seen as problem in the beginning because an all-powerful creator God was always in the background. Science was about explaining God’s creation. The creator was not science’s concern.
And what went wrong?
Q: What went wrong since the beginning of modern science in 16th century?
A: Division of reality into mind and matter was a hugely liberating experience for natural philosophers. The world of experience was separated into two distinct realms and science raced ahead with the ‘real’ part, the quantifiable aspects of reality. But the ‘imaginary’ part corresponding to phenomenal experience slowly became an unsolvable problem.
Q: How did science deal with mind early on?
A: Mind was not seen as a problem because Cartesian model had incorporated placeholders such as creator God and human soul to account for the ungraspable part of reality. Scientific progress was expected to produce evidence for God. Unfortunately, the model unravelled in no time. Pineal gland, which Descartes believed to be the seat of human soul, turned out to be much less interesting as physiologists investigated its functioning. No evidence for a creator was found when astronomers probed the depths of space.
Q: So materialist science and philosophy ended up with erroneous conclusions regarding the nature of reality?
A: Descartes’ placeholders were not mere gap fillers to be discarded later. Creator God and human soul were essential for overall consistency of the mechanistic worldview. A clock-work universe made no sense without a creator God who initiated the whole thing. Human body as a machine is consistent with observation only with the postulation of a soul element capable of interacting with the body. Scientific progress in the last 300 years neglected these essential elements of the mechanistic worldview, thereby destroying the consistency of the original model.
Q: Why did science fail to find evidence for Descartes’ placeholders?
A: Looking for something and not finding could mean many things. The stuff may not actually exist or it might take much more effort to find it. These are the most likely reasons but there is another intriguing possibility- the tools employed may not be adequate to identify the object looked for.
Q: I am surprised why philosophers of knowledge did not get to the root of the problem.
A: There were great debates about the nature of knowledge. The pivotal role of the question ‘what exactly is scientific knowledge?’ got lost in the circularity of explaining knowledge acquisition as a function of ‘minds’, which no one understood in the first place.
Q: We are in 21st century. Do you think undoing mind-matter division would lead us to an integrated view of nature?
Possible way out
A: Mind-matter division was an important breakthrough. Scientific progress wouldn’t have been possible without that crucial step. Observer independent knowledge was a pathbreaking innovation.
Q: Yes, but the same progress is pushing life towards an existential crisis.
A: The ‘knower’ evolved to conquer the unknown and improve the upright ape’s survivability. It has accomplished this task well enough, perhaps overdone a bit, as proven by the success & failures of human species. It is time for some serious self-reflection. How is the ‘knower’ related to the ‘nature-in-itself’? Philosophers of science should re-look at this all-important question.
Q: ‘Knower’ is a black box defined in terms of input-output relationship. How could we study its mechanism?
A: Science of life is the key to unlock the mystery of ‘knower’. Evolutionary history should offer clues about its nature, origin and development.
Mind, Evolution and Meaning 
I enjoyed reading your post(s) and apologise for this rather long comment here.
I do not think mind is anything other than its contents. Its contents being the thoughts, sensory perceptions, feelings, emotions- everything experienced by an apparent ‘subjective’ unified centre.
From strictly a scientific biological point of view- I do not have any problem accepting, that these “contents” of the so-called mind are all emergent properties of the biological physiology (having a neurological basis in the organic brain). Many studies with patients with brain injuries, who have very specific damage in different parts of their brain, have shown a physiological-neurological association for many of these processes. The complete understanding of the whole mechanism behind these contents of the ‘mind’, arising from the brain- is still in primitive stages, but if we extrapolate the observations so far as a broad trajectory- it is only a matter of time, the missing details will be filled up eventually.
Mind and matter may not be very different and separate other than as concepts. I see them as one and refer to this ’Body-Brain’ complex as “Body-mind”.
But what this ‘mind-matter’ is- What is its reality? This ultimate, fundamental, irreducible, independent reality of ‘whatever’ it is- whether it is matter or mind- is the same reality manifested as everything that is. Reality of whatever is, regardless of the forms, diversity and variations in expression- is this one same reality.
Within this wide reality of “all that is”, we have a set of rules of nature operating, starting with the mathematics, laws of physics, chemistry and the whole biological-evolutionary basis of life. Humans have worked out the functioning of these laws through observation, which is the evolution of the scientific process- that makes everything in the objective world knowable/ understandable/ predictable. These measurable scientific truths are the ‘knowable’ subset of the same reality, which has the ‘unknowable’ aspects that we do not understand.
The ‘knower’ and its ‘subjectivity’ are both as much a part of this reality as anything else that is.
This knower knows everything in the material world, through its senses and faculties (neurological mechanism in the physical organic brain)- which have progressively evolved from primitive brains of other simpler life forms- but certainly have a biological organic (physical) basis. Hence the science and its approach works robustly in this world.
But like the eye which sees the whole world (metaphor for the scientific approach), can never see itself- his own “subjectivity” remains elusive to the knower- except as a concept (thus known or formulated as an objective knowledge, equivalent of an eye seeing itself in a mirror).
There will never be any way for an eye to see itself directly, nor will the scientific approach (which goes outwards) lead to unravel the complete truth of the subjectivity or consciousness (which is essentially inwards/within relative to everything it can ever know).
The sentience clearly has a biological basis, and by extension everything that is known through the “body-mind” has a biological basis- but we have no reason to assume that the ‘knower’ shares this “physicality” (with all that he knows) or his emergence is confined to this same evolutionary mechanism.
The question which asks the scientific mechanism of “how” the knower emerges from the physical brain, is assuming that the knower (consciousness/awareness) who notes and experiences everything, has a physiological basis which will be understood through the same approach as anything else.
The only direct way to know the “knower” is to be the knower. The knower knows his self by being himself, whenever he goes deep in the living- conscious-aware ’experience’ (not thought) of ’I am’.
Now this is direct knowing, but it is possible only when the attention flows within, inwards- in the direction opposite to all other material/worldly scientific exploration. This is the same reality though, and this is the direct access to this reality (the reality of all that is), as a “knowing being” oneness with this reality.
So, who is the knower? It is the same reality, knowing itself in its diverse forms through the knower, and then knowing itself directly as the knower, through being the knower (attention turning upon itself). Yes, this is more poetic, than scientific!
You are welcome to comment. The world would have been a much better place if more people lived the wisdom you allude to, but even spiritual traditions beginning with such insights deteriorate over time, struggling to capture the ‘unknowable’ with words and definitions to make it more palatable to human reason!
Human reason is certainly valuable and essential, if only to discover the limits of how much it can find! Perhaps when the mind is exhausted exploring all possibilities through reason, yet the deep yearning for the ‘unknown’ remains- it arrives in that zone, from where the jump to the ‘unknowable’ may eventually become possible.
I think your approach in your writing is valuable as that essential exploration, which eventually will lead to answers, either by ruling out what cannot be, or clearing the path for the mind and its reasoning, that needs to completely exhaust itself before it can grasp the truth beyond its reach.
Shajanm,
I’ve been reading your blog as well as comments you make on other blog sites, so I have a question. Is your grounding metaphysical position idealism, materialism of something else? It would help me to know so I can make a coherently informed comment.
Thanks……
Hi FC,
Thanks for reading. I believe the fundamental substance is unknowable…my position may be closer to neutral monism. This is how it appears in an upcoming post:
===
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.
===
Thanks shajanm,
You’ve got my attention now. Looking forward to your next posts and the arrival of the mystery. After you’ve finished, I hope your conclusion is open for discussion.
This blog is about asking questions and I am always open to new ideas. Thank you.
Ramble,
“…but we have no reason to assume that the ‘knower’ shares this “physicality” (with all that he knows) or his emergence is confined to this same evolutionary mechanism.”
Could you elucidate further on this comment. I don’t want to assume anything but this comment suggests that you might hold to a perspective of dualism.
Thanks…
I liked this post a lot. It takes your approach to the next level and starts to get at key issues around dualism and the relationship between science and spirituality.
“Q: This is where I fail to follow you. Are you suggesting rational arguments will lead us from scientific objectivity to some kind of transcendental truth?
A: Not exactly. We should remain objective and realistic at the same time. There isn’t anything supernatural or otherworldly about this suggestion. ‘Measurable’ is only a subset of ‘Real’.”
I am less skeptical about the ability of science to lead to some kind of transcendental truth. My own path was inspired by an old friend – Neil Feldman – who died about ten years ago, after I had not seen him for decades. He left behind a book “To My Next Incarnation: How Science Led Me to Spirituality”, and his book has been something like a posthumous mentor for me. I put a link below.
Following his example, I have tried to delve into fundamental physics and quantum mechanics, reading authors like Sean Carroll, Ismael, Penrose, Rovelli, Capra, as well as philosophers and neuroscientists like Nagel, Dennett, Seth, Mitchell, Libet, Goff, Koch. Recently I have started reading about the non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta. I am starting to believe that there is a possible convergence of philosophical and scientific ideas that might resemble something like “transcendental truth.” I’m not sure yet. My own writing attempts to understand and describe that convergence as best I can.
That is my path in the last third of my life. It is valuable to come across others like yourself who are contending with many of these same issues. I will continue reading your work.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/49114398-to-my-next-incarnation
One could remain in the realm of rational thinking and realize its incompleteness (which cannot be filled by more rational arguments). That would be a form of spirituality.
I need to spend some time with the work of Neil Feldman. Looks interesting. Thanks for the link.