Is science a language? Language of theory?

[charlie cho]

This is a revelation! Or if you like to argue I am wrong, please do, because I learn better precisely by discussing matters with other people than just letting it go dry in my mind alone. 

I have been really thinking deeply with all my attention. After reading a paper regarding how Einstein thought what distinguished a good student to the bad one was how much interest he had in the theory of knowledge (and Leo's videos on science), i tried to understand what science is opposed to other disciplines and spirituality and life. I always struggled with science firstly because I could not distinguish science from reality. I was able to distinguish mathematics to reality because I knew so very well math was a discipline of language. Of course, maths is a language maybe more refined and quite different from English, Chinese, and Hindi, but it is a language nonetheless. So it was easy to study math because I knew it was a hypothesis from the very start, whereas I could not do the same with science because people loved to blur the lines of science with reality (which is wrong)

Science is theory. Theory about the behavior of nature, but not the behavior of nature itself. Watching a video from OSHO about how he enlightened his math teacher about what math really is, it gave me a certain revelation that science is the same. While math has hypothesis saying 1, 2, 3, 4 dimensions are 'real' and starting from there to branch out several theories regarding Euclid and many mathematicians which goes beyond me, science is the same. 

Is hypothesis totally wrong? Quite! But there is a catch. It is practical, but not truth!  There is no need to try and destroy what's practical, just we need to accept that it is hypothesis and start from there when studying math.

 

Well, my observation is that science also starts from hypothesis. What hypothesis? Probably, on the top of my head, I can only say that most of our sciences following the hypothesis that start saying what we see, hear, feel is real. (We all know all hypothesis can never be 'real' but lets carry on) Therefore, all our experiments are conducted through our seeing, hearing, smell. Seeing cells. Feeling the temperature of certain flames. Though we cannot 'see' photons, waves of radio transmit, infrared light, anything beyond out color spectrum, we know by proving the existence of it by 'seeing' how experimental equipment's react with the object we are trying to prove exists. Same with atoms, and that is how it was discovered. The brown theory? I don't know. How objects were banging on each other without any force given to it. Or how we knew each atoms always had a certain quantity of weight even though the elements were different. IT was all by inference through other objects to prove the theory which is seeing using our senses nonetheless. 

Therefore, just like english, chinese words cannot express the Dao 道, and if the Dao can be expressed, it cannot be the true way, same with the behavior of nature. Just like mathematics cannot express the universe, anything of the behavior of the universe expressed in mathematics cannot be the true way. Which is what science is trying to do, isn't it? Maybe not all mathematics, but with visuals, hearing... etc. all the same. Pictures are a language, voices are a language. IT cannot be expressed through words, mathematics, pictures, audio... anything. But, just like spiritual books can be written through language, i don't think science is an exception. That was just an additional thought. Tao te ching with maths? Can we not agree one of the very reasons man is related to the heavens is because we are able to speak language? If we weren't able to speak language, or have the intelligence to have thoughts, theories, hypothesis, and language, we wouldn't be able to reach the heavens.  If you've read the description until here, I applaud you, comment please. 

 

[ajai]

Wonderfully written and thank-you for information.

[Gesundheit]

Science is grounded in empiricism for the most part.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

And, yes, of course, it is a language that we use to talk with the universe/objects around us.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Gesundheit

[charlie cho]

@Gesundheit Yes, i agree. If only empiricism tweeked its meaning rather, not as direct sensory experience, but as direct experience, then I would have said science does not care about direct experience at all. Because if science was trusting direct experience as the absolute truth, they would not have justified true of all these theories that are currently 99% based on our senses (eyes, hearing, smell) as you have stated. Anything that is based on senses cannot be absolute truth. Our senses are limited. Anyone who has directly experienced the actual limitation of the senses, one would not have the confidence to say all detection based on our senses is true at all.

I don't know why current scientists are so confident in wearing their empricists hat and showing it off. True knowledge cannot come out of the senses, yet they think they know the whole world just because they went far off with studying the world through only the limited senses. Why haven't science asked the question, "maybe knowledge can come out of what is not of the senses?" Nobody dares to touch on this subject in universities. Why?

Edited December 7, 2020 by charlie cho

[charlie cho]

@ajai Are you serious? Wonderfully written? Can you tell me what you have gotten out of it? 

[ajai]

Yeah I'm hella serious,

Since the way you put the light on the fact that, be it academic Science or Mathematics, neither of them shouldn't be considered SERIOUS at all (when it's about knowing Reality for the sake of it) since if any hypothesis which postulate knowing it all, it can be flawed at it's very core and thus there's need to investigate all theories with an open mind and not just propound what others have said or claimed something in past, just as what Rajneesh did when he visited his Maths class,

A tool for investigating into the very nature of Reality is just a TOOL afterall, be it Science, Mathematics or any other discipline which is based on a set of premises and postulates.

But if you think you didn't express the subject matter WONDERFULLY , I take my compliment back.

Regards.

Edited December 7, 2020 by ajai

[ajai]

43 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

Why haven't science asked the question, "maybe knowledge can come out of what is not of the senses?" Nobody dares to touch on this subject in universities. Why?

Perhaps in some corner of the world a scientist is already asking such questions, your justifications about Science also depends on how much you know about the works of Scientists that are involved in the work, perhaps there are some, directly taking the question you are asking head-on,

"maybe knowledge can come out of what is not of the senses?"

Just because of a few motherfuckers, it's not okay to scapegoat the whole discipline as well, every system today has got flaws and thus is also open for further improvements but that will only happen by concrete action in positive direction, not by condemning and ridiculing the whole discipline again and again and philosophizing stuff, perhaps that's the only reason that we went too deep in the pithole of always theorizing and playing blame game that stature of Science is not what it is supposed to be, and there are Universities working for real, but they don't make an uproar and claim everyone to visit their place and see their like few others in the limelight, work is a process, the true Science is a process as well.

[charlie cho]

@ajai Yes. Of course, there is someone who has the same opinion. I have seen very few. And I didn't mean to critisize the whole of the discipline. No, I was just asking, why do I see so few talking about this? Not only few. It's a blatant fact, and more blatant it is, I would have thought this idea of how limited the senses are must have been out in the public long ago, but apparently, it is condemned by many scientists it seems to me which I cannot grasp why! Anyways, thanks for answering. 

[ajai]

@charlie cho

Do you know about Prof. Noam Chomsky,

We need more people like him.

On 07/12/2020 at 2:42 AM, charlie cho said:

Therefore, just like english, chinese words cannot express the Dao 道, and if the Dao can be expressed, it cannot be the true way, same with the behavior of nature.

Even the 'DAO' is  just a concept isn't it? and same holds true for 'TRUE' itself and 'NATURE' and perhaps about any other abstract concept like,

REALITY

CONSCIOUSNESS

GOD

TRUTH

Even the thing called as DIRECT EXPERIENCE.

The very intrinsic nature of being a human being is to know and expand,  thus humans have a tendency to reify every damn thing that comes his/her way and thus is a mere puppet of the SENSES.

Now whether you want to surrender to your Senses or Not?  that's a matter to contemplate upon.

Edited December 7, 2020 by ajai

[ajai]

12 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

I would have thought this idea of how limited the senses are must have been out in the public long ago, but apparently, it is condemned by many scientists it seems to me which I cannot grasp why!

To be honest it's good for them,

They (Scientists) are at a primitive stage, and I advocate the philosophy of embodying your ignorance first,

Haha, and they seem to go very well on the track of embodying ignorance and infact going even as far as making their Self-Identity (aka Ego) as stubborn as possible, good for them, 

The Greater and the more Stubborn the Ego is, the Stronger and even Harder shall be the Wisdom and hence calming shall be the Epiphany,  making them more n more Humble towards the higher purpose/ Dharma.

[charlie cho]

@ajai what does embodying ignorance mean?

[Gesundheit]

4 hours ago, charlie cho said:

@Gesundheit Yes, i agree. If only empiricism tweeked its meaning rather, not as direct sensory experience, but as direct experience, then I would have said science does not care about direct experience at all. Because if science was trusting direct experience as the absolute truth, they would not have justified true of all these theories that are currently 99% based on our senses (eyes, hearing, smell) as you have stated. Anything that is based on senses cannot be absolute truth. Our senses are limited. Anyone who has directly experienced the actual limitation of the senses, one would not have the confidence to say all detection based on our senses is true at all.

I don't know why current scientists are so confident in wearing their empricists hat and showing it off. True knowledge cannot come out of the senses, yet they think they know the whole world just because they went far off with studying the world through only the limited senses. Why haven't science asked the question, "maybe knowledge can come out of what is not of the senses?" Nobody dares to touch on this subject in universities. Why?

I'm not sure I follow here. What have I stated? And what are the differences between sensory experience and direct experience?

And as for the second part, I am sure there are people who question science from within academia. But there is a formal conduct for that process that favors results over metaphysics. After all, humans didn't invent science to explore the world and look for absolute truth. Science exists because it's of its usefulness. And the term "absolute truth" is misleading. It's not like people look for and seek absolute truth for no reason. Even that is motivated by a selfish agenda, regardless of what it is. It's misleading to think that human beings can move out of practicing selfishness.

[ajai]

Just accepting that- "I/You do not know", if not directly perhaps indirectly, 

just like some arrogant/ignorant guy, who is stuck in his own paradigm,

Let us understand this by an Analogy,

Let us suppose I got some problem in my car which is most expensive in the world, but me being stubborn about the fact that my car just can't stop working, since it's most expensive in world, this doesn't change the fact that it's jacked rt now and only a mechanic can fix it, no matter how aloud I keep asserting that no it is the best car, which won't make it work till eternity, 

But see? It is me being stupid, isn't it? Owning the most expensive car does not validate the car to always work perfectly, it's a machine afterall and hence has all right in the world to break down or not work properly in some situations.

Similarly, when I say embodying ignorance, it means first you gotta come to pedestal/base of ignorance and accept that, "I DON'T KNOW", (now ofcourse not all say/accept it bluntly they take assistance of BS arguments and logic, which too are limited)

only then you can move forward towards a baseless base or a pedestal where there is no pedestal,

Even in spiritual teachings I see Teachers trying to teach their students- See, See you are not this body/Ego, and that you are God, you are this-you are that, blah-blah,

rather teaching should start in a different fashion by being at, or touching the student where he/she is at, only if you can go to his level you can take him forward, making him realize his true self at the primitive stage, which is the realization or awakening of- "That he is ignoramus" and that it is good stage to start with,

and then slowly and steadily embodying/accepting each and every stage transcending from ignorance to WISDOM.

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by ajai

[charlie cho]

@Gesundheit Science exists for usefulness? I don't know. 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

After all, humans didn't invent science to explore the world and look for absolute truth. Science exists because it's of its usefulness. 

I really don't know about that. It depends on how you believe science had started in our history. Many would disagree to that statement that science and mathematics solely exists for usefulness. It happens to be the fact that many 'useless' discoveries turned out to be 'useful' discoveries in both science and mathematics. So I beg to differ. 

In fact, I would have to say spiritual enlightenment cannot happen if one is unclear, illogical, or contradictory. How can anyone who fit such categories be called a scientist? I cannot conceive of such a fact. It doesn't take an Einstein to know that if you add a base and an acid to react as solutions in a tube, it will create water. If you read the theory, see the explanation in a book, and try it out your self in a home lab, it's apparent that it is the case. Nothing useful about it. It's just a fact. 

2 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

 And the term "absolute truth" is misleading. It's not like people look for and seek absolute truth for no reason. Even that is motivated by a selfish agenda, regardless of what it is. It's misleading to think that human beings can move out of practicing selfishness.

The term absolute truth is misleading? Then what should i call it? Truth? All i meant was very simple. Are the senses at all trustable? Yes, or no. If no, (which I have said), then it is not true. I wasn't talking about God or enlightenment. I just meant it's not entirely true. 

And what do you mean by scientists don't trust their senses? You just linked me to a site about empircism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism    You said, science is about empiricism.

11 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Science is grounded in empiricism for the most part.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Empiricism means, according to the link you gave me, knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience. 

 

The difference between sensory experience and direct experience is significant. If we try to experience solely with the senses, with the eyes, ears, taste, smell, and feeling, (and thought, i might add) is not direct. When we investigate, look, realize, see the mountain, the river, hear beethoven's sonata, tarrega's gran vals, taste the pasta, fish, merely looking at the mountain isn't really seeing the mountain in all its entirety. Merely hearing another person speak with the ear is not hearing at all unless there is attention. Merely tasting the chips we eat at mc donalds with our mouth will not give us what the potato chip is in its entirety. One may see, but not see. One may hear but not hear. One may taste but not taste. There is no directness. What I am getting at is that the senses is merely a recorder. The eye is a camera. The ear is a microphone. We never see the mountain, but just look at the picture of the mountain. However advanced your camera is, however healthy your eyesight is (2.0 and above, like mongolians), however expensive the speaker you have in your house to hear Leo's words, however healthy you hearing is... maybe because you have taken care of your ears throughout childhood, you are not really grasping its essence, its nectar. One may have bad eye sight, may have bad hearing, but he can see the the world more accurately than any other, can have bad hearing, but knows music more than any other. Senses can never go to the essence. It's merely a camera. And cameras never see the mountain, just as microphones can never hear the sonata Beethoven. That is direct experience. 

Just because you can record how the mountain looks like (4k) with you eyes, just because you can record to an orchestra without screeching sounds with excellent Sony-esque sound quality level with your ears, does not mean you have really seen the mountain. OR hear the orchestra playing. 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by charlie cho

[ajai]

I still haven't got what do you mean by Direct Experience.

The reason you can taste, smell, see, hear and touch is because of the apparatus you have endowed with.

4 hours ago, charlie cho said:

One may see, but not see. One may hear but not hear. One may taste but not taste.

The reason you can see is due to the fact that you have visual apparatus even if someone is not bestowed with eyes and if is blind, that doesn't mean his biology will behave completely different, we must know that all he is missing are eyes, which might be a part of the whole visual apparatus but not the "whole apparatus" which includes the nerves and other things as well, the senses are not as what they only seem to be, they are infused completely throughout the body in such a way that maybe if someone is missing one of the pieces of that apparatus but it would be superfluous to say that he lacks sensory experiences completely, because that(sensory functioning) is something acquired through genetic endowment, you just can not neglect your complete sensory functioning as a whole.

[charlie cho]

@ajai My question has to be then, don't the eyes merely function as cameras? Don't the ears merely function as two microphones? What function do the eyes and the ears have aside from being a camera recorder or a sound recorder? Can we not agree that although our eyes are not good as 4k cameras or ears are not good as high quality microphones that exist out there, that our eyes and ears cannot function anything more than recording the world out there, but mustn't we see the recording is never the real world out there! And finally, is it the eye and the ear seeing or hearing it, or is it merely a device to see and hear it? (You may or may not put the picture and the audiofile in your brain and put it into memory, but that is a whole different matter. Because that is not for the eyes or the ears to decide) It is obvious though that anything the eye or the ear experiences is not the real world but just pictures and audiofiles of the real outside world. May I ask, with only the camera, with only the microphone (however great the technology is) can one really see the mountain that the camera recorded? With only the microphone, can one really hear the sound of birds and the river that it recorded? No matter how hard we try, with the camera and the microphone, we can never experience the universe at all!

One may say that eyes and ears function more than just microphones and cameras. That eyes and ears can be conscious of the sounds and pictures. But is that really true? Even if we are blind. Even if we are deaf, is our consciousness dead? The rest, I leave it for you to formulate and understand. 

Again my question is don't the eyes and the ears merely function as cameras and microphones to the real world out there? Just remember, microphones and cameras can never experience the world no matter how good a quality they have, good a technology they have. Same as the human senses. Healthy, sick, old... all the same! Therefore, can we really declare our senses are the door way to directly experience nature? 

[ajai]

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

don't the eyes merely function as cameras?

No.

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

Don't the ears merely function as two microphones?

Not at all.

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

But is that really true?

Welp, that depends on your definition of what's true and what is not as I said it's just a relative thing, certain thing might be true for you and not for me.

(As per me there's no Truth at all, and with that said I don't agree with what I just said, since there's nothing like False or Not-Truth per se, Reality is baseless the moment you base it anywhere you are creating a duality and making a distinction which perhaps is not what GOD is in my opinion, haha)

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

Even if we are blind. Even if we are deaf, is our consciousness dead?

No! in my opinion, things will work in a certain way for them too, it will be just "their" world, just like other animals and insects and other living organisms, they all never behave the same given the fact that all have different, for example: A bat can prey at night using supersonic waves but we can't, it's just with what qualities "you" are endowed with.

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

Just remember, microphones and cameras can never experience the world no matter how good a quality they have, good a technology they have.

Yeah I agree.

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

Same as the human senses.

Indeed.

47 minutes ago, charlie cho said:

can we really declare our senses are the door way to directly experience nature?

What do you say?

As far as I'm concerned, I would say no way at all.

So besides everything how would you like to conclude the thread, what's your take away?

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by ajai

[charlie cho]

So you asked me what i meant by direct experience. That was my answer. And as you ask me whether i am able to declare that our senses can directly experience nature, I do not believe.  @ajai I would have to repeat. My answer would be that our eyes are cameras. Ears are microphones. The camera may show the video of the world it has taken or recorded to the person wishing to see. The microphone may play back the music or the sound of nature and the universe for the listener. But it can't do much else. So it is with our senses. 

Edited December 8, 2020 by charlie cho

[ajai]

I agree with you.

 

[kbone]

Science, as a whole, seems to start with the premise that stuff exists, and some of it becomes conscious and, therefore, can "possess consciousness". It kinda snorta has its own conditioning, as a system of thought. 'S okay, no biggie.

In Truth, all exists in/as Consciousness.                                                  <to which science rolls its eyes>

 

Whoopsy daisy.