Posts
Comments
Yes, I do agree with what this articles says. There is no way to link QM an experimental science to the traditional notion of consciousness. In a way, it may also have a clue of their relation to the ultimate question, whether there is any reality beyond what QM finds as on date by it's distinctive scientific method. I am more in an enigma when I think about Einstein's ability or his thought processes as a phenomenal scientist to be to grasp the nature of a reality to the extent to which he did. Similarly, the minds of great mathematicians who sees mathematical truths in and through their minds. It reminds me Hegel who stated that what is real is rational and vice versa.
Ancient Greek philosophers talk about the law of conformity or the like thing knows the like. Lastly, nature, if at all it exists or at least in the ways in which science finds it, it seems that, it inadvertantly or else is somehow seeking to itself with the mechanism of the great scientists' brains. Since brain is physical or corporeal, as a part or an evolute of nature, it's efforts for self-knowledge is a mystery. This is the reformulated view of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, the Indian philosopher in his book "An Idealist View of Life". Consciousness or mind seems to be always in the background or as it is said to be the brain's functional expression or as an epiphenomenon or as an emergent entity etc by experts in the relevant fields during the relentless endeavours of scientists in attempting to have a scientific decoding of the truth, if any behind what it is. I believe that, if time is real, then, since our very act of thinking scientific or otherwise is always temporal, the eventual knownness of the possible truth in it's entirity will be co-terminus with end of the world as a whole. If time persists in it's relative fashion, and if the cosmic Dynamics has to go on, then, it's temporality may ensure that, for the show to go on, truth on whatever in it's form will forever lie in the ever receding horizon of the knowledge or else.
Right, in all these issues surrounding the concept of consciousness tackled by cognitive & neuropsychological sciences etc while trying to explain away it, & reduce it to some quantifiable physical properties, no matter to what extent they have been done using standard scientific tools, methods & peer group's verifications to conclude in some objective truth claims, what has been missing or taken for granted is that, those scientists themselves can never circumvent or ignore their acts of seeing or observing or carrying out all those theoretical operations which presuppose the subjective phenomenon as the given. This was long realized in India by Sankara in the 8th century when he declared that, what is presupposed by all mental acts (including today's sciences) can never be grasped by those which presuppose it (pure consciousness or cin-maatra). He never claimed that it can be known by the finite human mind & senses etc but, he stated that no human experience can occur without their underlying ground which reveals them.