Julian, I’m writing a book took and may take your lead in opening it to scrutiny during the writing process. I also want it to be free.
One of the insights which you are free to use in your own writing is that science deals only in the behavior of forms. It tells nothing about ‘lived experience’: the thrill and terror of battle, the hug of a child, the stench of rotting garbage in a back alley, eating a pie at the footy, chatting with friends, a sublime symphony or the intoxicating beat of an African drums, or anything else that it means to be alive.
At its most rigorous science, uses mathematics to model theoretical forms (quantum field, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, cells... all the way up to stars, galaxies, clusters and the background radiation) and their theoretical properties (mass, charge, spin, pressure, etc), that together with theoretical constants (Planck’s constant, the Speed of Light, etc) and natural laws (Conservation of Energy, etc) determine their theoretical behavior.
We say a theory is valid when the theoretical behavior of the theoretical forms reliably maps or predicts (not necessarily perfectly) the observed behavior of observed forms. That is all
Science can never say anything about the ‘essence’ of ‘things’ nor of this Consciousness in which and to which all things appear, including all theories and observed events and relations.
When scientists make observations they limit their analysis to the observed results, say apparent on a computer screen.
Yet, according to science, the screen is only apparent to the scientist as a result of invisible electromagnetic radiation emitted by the screen which is absorbed by the retina. At that point, there is neither ‘light’ nor ‘colour’ apparent.
Instead, the energy is transmuted into an electrochemical impulse that travels along the optic nerve (though nothing actually moves from one end of the nerve to the other; it is more like a line of falling dominoes). Only as the energy flow enters the visual cortex at the back of the brain do colors appear (no one knows how). The further mystery is that not only do the colors appear, awareness of the colours arises in the same process. It is as if ‘the observer and observed are one’.
On this analysis, there is no little person inside the head looking out through the eyes into the assumed material works. All that are ever apparent to any observer are the immaterial colors (and other immaterial sensations) that are one with the observer.
On this analysis, the existence of the ‘material world’ is a matter of belief that must be taken on faith.
Consciousness on the other hand requires no theory or belief.
It is ‘self-evident’
My book explores the implications of this Reality :)
I look forward to exploring the world and Consciousness with you
Hey, how can I not give a "like" to an article that quotes me! I appreciate the clarification of your position and which specific areas of science you're critiquing.
One point on reductionism. How common is this view among scientists really -- that is, outside hardcore particle theorists who arrogantly speak of a "theory of everything"?
I think there is widespread appreciation in science that there is a separation of levels. One can understand chemistry while knowing nothing of quarks. Even more so, knowing the internal structure of nucleons adds precisely nothing to one's understanding of chemistry. Similarly, while we do know that the laws of thermodynamics can be explained based on microscopic phenomena (the domain of statistical mechanics), they can also be understood and applied at a purely macroscopic level. And despite our knowledge that weird quantum behavior is happening all around us at the micro-scale, Newtonian mechanics is absolutely valid at the (sub-relativistic) macro-scale we experience.
Ask your favorite hardcore reductionist to derive the heritability of cystic fibrosis from the Standard Model of particle physics. If he handwaves that it's "in principle" possible but we just don't know all the details, tell him his belief is based on faith, not science.
Thanks to you for generously sharing all your hard work in here, it's been a great time catching up on all the old articles. I just finished today, after joining when you posted "I Wrote A Story For A Friend", and I am a bit sad I have "ran out" of your thought-provoking posts.
Looking forward to all future entries to the substack, take care!
This was great! Thank you for writing this book. I also have a suggestion for art in space, and I'm surprised it's not in the examples already shared with you! There is a cofer of David Bowie's Space Oddity that was recorded in the International Space Station, with a music video also filmed in space, by Commander Chris Hadfield, it can be found on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo
When I read all of those examples of artists in space I remembered how this video moved me to tears years ago when I watched it.
Julian, I’m writing a book took and may take your lead in opening it to scrutiny during the writing process. I also want it to be free.
One of the insights which you are free to use in your own writing is that science deals only in the behavior of forms. It tells nothing about ‘lived experience’: the thrill and terror of battle, the hug of a child, the stench of rotting garbage in a back alley, eating a pie at the footy, chatting with friends, a sublime symphony or the intoxicating beat of an African drums, or anything else that it means to be alive.
At its most rigorous science, uses mathematics to model theoretical forms (quantum field, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, proteins, cells... all the way up to stars, galaxies, clusters and the background radiation) and their theoretical properties (mass, charge, spin, pressure, etc), that together with theoretical constants (Planck’s constant, the Speed of Light, etc) and natural laws (Conservation of Energy, etc) determine their theoretical behavior.
We say a theory is valid when the theoretical behavior of the theoretical forms reliably maps or predicts (not necessarily perfectly) the observed behavior of observed forms. That is all
Science can never say anything about the ‘essence’ of ‘things’ nor of this Consciousness in which and to which all things appear, including all theories and observed events and relations.
When scientists make observations they limit their analysis to the observed results, say apparent on a computer screen.
Yet, according to science, the screen is only apparent to the scientist as a result of invisible electromagnetic radiation emitted by the screen which is absorbed by the retina. At that point, there is neither ‘light’ nor ‘colour’ apparent.
Instead, the energy is transmuted into an electrochemical impulse that travels along the optic nerve (though nothing actually moves from one end of the nerve to the other; it is more like a line of falling dominoes). Only as the energy flow enters the visual cortex at the back of the brain do colors appear (no one knows how). The further mystery is that not only do the colors appear, awareness of the colours arises in the same process. It is as if ‘the observer and observed are one’.
On this analysis, there is no little person inside the head looking out through the eyes into the assumed material works. All that are ever apparent to any observer are the immaterial colors (and other immaterial sensations) that are one with the observer.
On this analysis, the existence of the ‘material world’ is a matter of belief that must be taken on faith.
Consciousness on the other hand requires no theory or belief.
It is ‘self-evident’
My book explores the implications of this Reality :)
I look forward to exploring the world and Consciousness with you
Hey, how can I not give a "like" to an article that quotes me! I appreciate the clarification of your position and which specific areas of science you're critiquing.
One point on reductionism. How common is this view among scientists really -- that is, outside hardcore particle theorists who arrogantly speak of a "theory of everything"?
I think there is widespread appreciation in science that there is a separation of levels. One can understand chemistry while knowing nothing of quarks. Even more so, knowing the internal structure of nucleons adds precisely nothing to one's understanding of chemistry. Similarly, while we do know that the laws of thermodynamics can be explained based on microscopic phenomena (the domain of statistical mechanics), they can also be understood and applied at a purely macroscopic level. And despite our knowledge that weird quantum behavior is happening all around us at the micro-scale, Newtonian mechanics is absolutely valid at the (sub-relativistic) macro-scale we experience.
Ask your favorite hardcore reductionist to derive the heritability of cystic fibrosis from the Standard Model of particle physics. If he handwaves that it's "in principle" possible but we just don't know all the details, tell him his belief is based on faith, not science.
Thanks to you for generously sharing all your hard work in here, it's been a great time catching up on all the old articles. I just finished today, after joining when you posted "I Wrote A Story For A Friend", and I am a bit sad I have "ran out" of your thought-provoking posts.
Looking forward to all future entries to the substack, take care!
Very excited about your project!!!!! (And loved the intro 🥰)
This was great! Thank you for writing this book. I also have a suggestion for art in space, and I'm surprised it's not in the examples already shared with you! There is a cofer of David Bowie's Space Oddity that was recorded in the International Space Station, with a music video also filmed in space, by Commander Chris Hadfield, it can be found on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/KaOC9danxNo
When I read all of those examples of artists in space I remembered how this video moved me to tears years ago when I watched it.
Julian, are you aware of Aideen Barry’s residency with NASA where she produced a performance piece in zero gravity? https://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/artsandculture/arid-41025152.html