8 Answers

  1. Scientists will not be able to understand what consciousness is in principle. At the moment, there are more than 3 million studies in the field of neurophysiology, but from these studies it is impossible to gather knowledge that would explain what consciousness is.

    Why do I think that the answer to this question is fundamentally impossible? Because any concept that can be meaningful must be created in the mind in the form of a conceptual structure. The conceptual structure of consciousness itself is consciousness. In order to make sense of consciousness, it is necessary to create another consciousness within consciousness that can be meaningful. But this is not possible.

    Even if we can connect two brains into a single whole or add some “prefix” to the brain that will increase the number of neurons (even if artificially created), then consciousness will cover the entire neural network and it will again be impossible to comprehend it from the inside, because there can be no external consciousness in relation to the created consciousness within one conscious mind.

    To explain why even additional “powers” will not help in the realization of consciousness, let's pay attention to beings that are much less developed than humans. We can't imagine an insect's consciousness, although it is obviously much less conscious than we are. But consciousness cannot be less or greater, consciousness is something that is our own existence in relation to ourselves. To what extent this “definition” can be correct, or to what extent it can be erroneous – even this question cannot be answered. We cannot say what consciousness is and what consciousness is not. We can't even be sure that inanimate matter has no consciousness.

    There is a religious concept that says that the same consciousness looks through my eyes and through your eyes. That the knower is absolute spirit, and apart from this absolute there is nothing at all.

    But there are other questions that scientists have been looking for answers to for more than half a century. One of these questions is: how to explain the quantum-wave dualism and the effect of the observer on the materialization of a particle that behaves like a wave without an observer or as a potential probability of the particle's appearance at the moment of the appearance of the observer or even at the moment of the appearance of the possibility of an observer in the future. And the word “appearance” mentioned twice in the previous sentence is not an error.

    Another question from the field of quantum physics is related to quantum entanglement. This is a phenomenon in which the interdependence of two elementary particles is observed in such a way that a change in the state of one particle instantly affects the state of the second (entangled with the first) particle, regardless of the distance separating these two particles. The problem is that from Einstein's point of view, the speed of light is the maximum possible speed of information propagation. You can't exceed the speed of light. But quantum entangled particles interact instantly, even if they are located at different ends of the universe.

    Some scientists believe that solving the mysteries of quantum physics and solving the question of the origin of consciousness are interrelated. This relationship is considered within the framework of the concept of biocentrism, which, in turn, has some obvious similarities with the view of the world from the point of view of Buddhism.

  2. EVERYTHING can be understood by anyone – at a certain minimum level of depth and accuracy.

    The easiest method of minimal understanding of any thing / object is to know some of the properties of this thing / object.

    Example-all people know a considerable list of properties of Nature, but the full study and deep understanding of Nature is still very far away.

  3. There are many “things” that modern man cannot understand. It doesn't matter if he's a scientist or a tractor driver. This is normal because a person is constantly developing.

    However, there is already “open” (or given) knowledge that not everyone can understand. Understanding is the result of the process of improving consciousness. And this process is individual.

    One scientist does not accept this, and another can understand it.

    For example, Albert Einstein, who wrote:

    • “Common sense is a collection of biases acquired by the age of 18.” (This refers to the so-called “scientific common sense”).

    “Logic will take you from point A to point B. Your imagination will take you anywhere.”(This applies to those who trust only what they can “feel”)

    “When I study myself and my way of thinking, I come to the conclusion that the gift of imagination and fantasy meant more to me than any ability to think abstractly.”

    “Anyone who is seriously engaged in science, comes to the realization that in the laws of nature manifests a Spirit that is much higher than human. A spirit in the face of which, with our limited strength, we must feel our own weakness. “

    It is these scientists who make discoveries, because they look beyond the threshold that the traditional intellectual with a statistical reference book instead of a desktop book does not even suspect.

  4. Science has methodological boundaries, if that's what you mean. Any scientist knows them in principle, even if he declares declaratively that “science has no borders”. There are things that cannot be formulated within the framework of the scientific method, there are things that cannot be investigated within the framework of the scientific method, etc.The scientific method is the construction of models based on an experiment. If in principle it is impossible to set up a correct experiment or in principle it is impossible to construct a correct model, then cognition within the framework of the scientific method is impossible.

    For example, the existence of” objective reality ” can neither be proved nor disproved. We postulate that there is a reality of a physical experiment, but 1) this is generally taken as an axiom (since we see that it works), 2) this is a much weaker statement than the existence of “objective reality” in the philosophical sense. Nor can the existence of “God” or anything else transcendental be proved or disproved. It is impossible to make a correct experiment, because the concept of the transcendental contradicts the methodology of scientific experiment. Etc. These are big things, there are smaller ones.�

    There is no clear boundary, scientific methodology develops and “bites off” new pieces of the experimental field. For example, now there is an active development of scientific methodology in the field of experiments with consciousness. There are “soul” and ” ideas “and” personality ” – quite transcendental concepts that fundamentally cannot be investigated by science, but nevertheless the space of experiments is expanding and apparently there is still room to expand it further. And there are many such examples in all sciences.

    In short, there are such (scientifically unknowable) things, but it is impossible to establish clear boundaries of scientific knowledge. There are things that are definitely outside of it, but there is also a huge gray area that is not very clear about.

  5. This is metaphysics – a now forbidden field of knowledge that once began all knowledge about the world (meta-over) . Now nothing but ridicule causes, but metaphysics was at the beginning of all our sciences about the world, from it also came the logic of Aristotle, and the Nature of things. And looking at the current state of affairs in our science (which is mired in shamanism), I think-isn't it time to start from the beginning? From metaphysics?

  6. if a scientist means a modern researcher from a state institute (doctor, academician, no matter who).. so yes, there are whole disciplines of human knowledge (you can't call them scientific) that can't be understood and studied.

    there are a lot of such things in Chinese medicine .. this is certainly not about shops where 90% of the range is powders for potency. .. in Eastern traditional medicine, a huge amount of everything, there were even honest attempts by scientists to figure out what to take at least as physiotherapy, or reflexology, or at least as something .. no, it doesn't work out .. solid homeopathy is obtained.

    in general, there are problems with the ancient sciences .. which, however, many decided with the passage of progress .. the invention of telescopes, microscopes, and other devices made it possible, in principle, to close many unsolvable questions “how did they even find out???”.. but scientists are not able to reproduce some ancient discoveries without modern equipment today.

    if modern scientists are not even able to understand how, for example, in the 14th century, the Chinese learned about the state and density of the stratosphere, then what is the reason for this misunderstanding? .. I believe that the reason lies in the most modern scientific paradigm .. not even in people (not that modern people are dumber than the ancients), but if it is the paradigm that puts obstacles to understanding, then the scientists who use it cannot understand a lot of things in principle.

  7. Yes, because scientists are human beings. People tend to make mistakes. A scientist is a person, so a scientist cannot understand many things and phenomena.

  8. A principle is a complete theory that cannot be developed. The principle is static, temporary, and finite. So today he explains the event, but tomorrow he can't explain it, because everything changes. According to this, a scientist can understand any thing with the help of principles, but tomorrow his understanding will be wrong. It is better to be a scientist who relies not on principles, but on knowledge.

Leave a Reply