Help Support the Blog

Friday, December 30, 2016

Ciencia y Misticismo


Ciencia y Misticismo: ¿Quiénes son los locos?


Prueba de Vida
No hay una prueba científica de le existencia de Dios, He buscado. Puedes intentar con Google y obtener el mismo resultado. Las ideas bordean la estrecha área de la “prueba”, sin embargo, puede ser  verdad. Después de todo, la verdad es más extraña que la ficción. Simplemente observa el 2016
El amor desafía toda prueba como lo hace la propia existencia. No puedo probar que estoy consciente. La conversación que tengo en sueños es casi tan real como los que tengo estando despierto. No puedo probar que la materia del mundo existe, como demostrara Bishop Berkeley.
El escéptico filósofo Hume bromeó acerca de que mientras los argumentos de Berkeley no admiten la menor refutación, estos no inspiran la mínima convicción. Uno sospecha de que sus observaciones estaban inspiradas en la amargura. Hume se propuso  refutar a Dios. Dios era escéptico y Hume ya no existe.
Algunos misterios eluden a la ciencia: El origen del Universo, las olas gravitacionales, la cura al cáncer, la teoría del campo unificado, la teoría del todo. El problema de la consciencia es uno de esos misterios.
La teología intenta resolver el enigma, pero la teología es únicamente un departamento especial de pensamiento producido por la mente al trabajar en un aspecto en particular de los materiales presentes que presentan los sentidos.
Como hemos visto como consecuencia de la obra de Kant, la religión mental funciona en el nivel racional de consciencia; este es más o menos el método al igual que el objetivo de la investigación de los moralistas empíricos, los teólogos y los científicos. La crítica empírica de la Biblia y todo el tratamiento mental del tema de la religión, están viciados por la adopción de la así llamada razón. Y debido a que, tal como hemos señalado, la prueba espera, la teología “racional” es un método equívoco de explorar los asuntos en cuestión. Para profundizar el entendimiento de la realidad uno ha de ir por encima de la razón.
A primera vista, la idea de ir más allá de la razón es una anatema para el cerebro lógico. Los grandes científicos han hecho sus mejores descubrimientos al hacer eso y preguntar “¿Y qué pasa sí…?” incluso cuando “¿Y qué pasa si?” desafía la lógica. Esos “experimentos del pensamiento” encienden la imaginación de los científicos y de los escritores de ciencia ficción. Grandes mentes han llegado a soluciones elegantes a problemas matemáticos al razonar en reversa de una visión de realidad. Edward de Bono, filósofo del S. XX llama “pensamiento lateral# a la manera de ver esta forma de solución. Para aquellos para quien Dios es auto-evidente llaman a esta clase de visión “fe”. Los experimentos del pensamiento van más allá de la lógica y la razón y abren la puerta a la imaginación. Gran parte de la ciencia posterior del Siglo XX, incluyendo la teoría de la relatividad de Einstein, la física cuántica y el descubrimiento de los agujeros negros se basó  en gran medida en “experimentos del pensamiento” que iban más allá de la lógica. Einstein nos pidió imaginar un viaje en un elevador a la velocidad de la luz. Shrodinger nos pidió poner un gato en una caja que viva y muera de acuerdo a nuestra propia percepción subjetiva. El autor de Cogito, René Descartes imaginó el mundo físico como una elaborada ilusión y preguntó cómo podríamos estar seguros de que es real, Platón nos recodó que así como los prisioneros en una cueva ven sombras parpadeantes en una pared y lo perciben como la realidad, frecuentemente estamos engañados por los sentidos y la mente en nuestra interpretación empírica de los fenómenos. ¿Cómo podemos saber si es real?
La preciosa lógica que usamos para construir la tecnología falla cuando se aplica a la existencia. Nuestra visión de realidad puede únicamente ser fragmentada, como miles de imágenes en el ojo de una abeja. Con esa visión  fragmentada ¿cómo podemos ver la realidad última? ¿Cómo podemos ver al ser con el ojo de la razón?
El pensamiento rasional y el análisis son deconstructivos. Rompe las cosa. Romper las cosas y re-ensamblar las piezas es trabajo de obrero de fábrica. El análisis es una función primitiva de la mente. Para entender la naturaleza de la consciencia y de Dios es necesario ir más allá del análisis, más allá de la razón.
La habilidad para trascender la razón ha sido siempre cualidad de los visionarios. Incluso los escritores de ficción especulativa han sido capaces de ir más allá de las restricciones del raciocinio ordinario para crear mundos alternativos que capturan nuestra imaginación. La mitología inventiva de Star Wars, por ejemplo, es tan convincente que los ateos prefieren ese universo que el nuestro. Escritores imaginan posibilidades a través de experimentos que solamente más tardes se hacen realidades. Lo que fuera fantástico en tiempos de Julio Verne: los submarinos como el Nautilus, los cohetes a la luna y el viaje de 80 días alrededor del mundo son lugar común hoy en día.
Los escritores de ciencia ficción como Ray Bradbury, Stanislaw Lem y Philip K Dick que escribieron en los 50´s reimaginaron nuestro mundo como misiones a marte, viajes en el tiempo y mundos futuros disfuncionales poblados de sujetos en estado de vigilancia, video teléfonos, androides, y carros auto guiados. Asimov escribe las reglas de los robots y Arthur C, Clarke se preocupa acerca de la inteligencia artificial mucho antes de que el microprocesador se usara de alguna forma sustancial. Estos hombres crearon la mitología de la ciencia ficción en días anteriores a la televisión a color, cuando la NASA usaba reglas de diapositivas para calcular la trayectoria de los cohetes.
En donde los científicos insisten en pruebas rigurosas de la existencia de la conciencia y la mente, son descuidados intelectualmente cuando se trata de viajes en el tiempo, el desplazamiento curvo y la fusión fría. Estas posibilidades no están descartadas, ya que son proyectos de investigación “sexys”. Dios no es un proyecto sexy de investigación. Así que mientras no exista “prueba”, no se busca ninguna prueba”. Pero los científicos no son inmunes a las ideas creativas en ldonde los filósofos se encuentran con la ciencia ficción. Mientras no crucen la línea de la investigación científica y el misticismo.
Es por esto que los pensadores modernos no tienen dificultad en discutir las ideas de si los robots son inteligentes o li tienen derechos los androides. El culto popular del clásico Bladerunner esta basado en la historia de Philip K. Dick, “¿Sueñan los Androides en una Nave Eléctrica?” Es irónico que en una era cuando los humanos tienen pocos derechos la elite académica discuta los derechos de las máquinas. ¿Ya hemos alcanzado la era de Terminator en donde gobiernan los robots? ¿Es posible la inteligencia artificial? O es por definición humana la inteligencia. ¿Y qué del viaje en el tiempo? ¿Cuál es la natrualeza del tiempo y del espacio? Los nerds de la ciencia ficción aman las películas Matriz. Pero ¿no es en realidad Matrix una extensión de la metáfora de Platón acerca de la cueva? ¿Y no es la cueva de Platón un camino concreto de explicar el viejo concepto oriental de Maya, o mundo ilusorio. No es Matrix un ejemplo de cómo somos engañados por el universo subjetivo de Maya?
El inventor Ray Kurzweil desarrolló la tecnología OCR que usamos en el supermercado. Cada artículo que tiene un código en él le debe algo a Kurzweil. A sugerencia de Stevie Wonder, desarrolló los lectores de textos para reprodujeran libros de forma hablada. Kurzweil también desarrolló el sintetizador de teclado moderno. Recientemente desarrolló la idea de que en un futuro podríamos vivir para siempre “subiéndonos” a nosotros mismos a la nube y por ello haciéndonos inmortales.
Por supuesto, los fans de científicos y de la ciencia ficción están abiertos a estas presunciones. Pero trate de discutir el alma, la vida trascendental o a Dios y la ventana se cerrará. Las ideas de Dios y de la fe son irracionales, simples supersticiones, no son dignas de ser discutidas. Está bien hablar de agujeros de gusano en el tiempo o pensar en robots, pero hablar de la divinidad es caer en el factor “woo, woo”, Vivir en una realidad virtual generada por la computadora es genial; realizando que el propio ser eterno está envuelto de algún modo en un mundo ilusorio llamado maya no es genial.
La ciencia ficción y la loca especulación que se remonta “más allá de la razón” es genial, mientras se lleve a cabo en una película o en una pantalla, o en un iPhone. La princesa Lea es genial”. “L Fuerza esté Contigo” es genial. La devoción espiritual y la meditación en un mantra es locura irracional, fanatismo, tal vez incluso peligroso terrorismo.
Hay una delicada línea entre el genio y el misticismo, entre el místico y el loco. Por esta razón, los santos parecen en ocasiones ser locos. San Francisco, cuando apareció ante el Papa y le pidió seguir una vida simple, fue considerado un loco peligroso como lo fue Jesucristo cuando volcó los puestos de los cambistas en el Templo de Jerusalén.
En el lenguaje del Vaiṣṇavismo, un gran sato que tiene la apariencia exterior de un loco se llama avadhuta. Esas personas desafían las convenciones sociales normales y desafían nuestro pensamiento racional. Gaura Kishore Dāsa Babaji era un elevado santo y fue reconocido por los académicos como un pensador  profundo. Mientras que muchos gurus construyen templos y gastan pródigamente en centros de meditación. Babaji vivió en la pobreza bajo un barco en las orillas del Ganges. Evitó escrupulosamente a los hipócritas y materialistas. Mientras que su honestidad y erudición eran incuestionables, Gaura Kishore consideraba la devoción a Kṛṣṇa superior en sabiduría y moral. Estaba bien informado de las conclusiones de las Escrituras, pero pasó su tiempo absorto en tomar el Santo Nombre.
En ese entonces en India había muchos gurus y místicos quienes también eran expertos en lógica y razón. Muchos de estos maestros de élite eran candidatos para acharya, el maestro siguiente más importante en la línea. Para los observadores más casuales, Gaura Kishore Dās Babaji parecía un loco, un avadhuta. Y sin embargo, a pesar de la aparente irracionalidad del comportamiento de Babaji y su excéntrica apariencia externa, el elevado erudito Bhaktisiddhānta Sarasvatī lo aceptó como su guru, considerando que era la verdadera continuación de la línea Gaudiya. Mientras el propio Bhaktisiddhānta fue un distinguido astrólogo, un erudito en Sánscrito, y un comentador del Bhāgavatam que publicara miles de libros, él estimó la devoción de Babaji Maharaja por encima de su escolaridad y su análisis racional.



-->

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Science and Mysticism: Who are the Madmen?

Proof of Life


There is no scientific proof for the existence of God. I looked it up. You can try Google and get the same results. Ideas that skirt the narrow area of  “proof,” however, may still be true. After all, truth is stranger than fiction. Just look at 2016.

Love defies proof as does existence itself. I cannot prove that I am conscious. The conversations I entertain in dreams are every bit as real as the ones I have when awake. You cannot prove that matter or the world exist, as Bishop Berkeley demonstrated.



The skeptical philosopher Hume once quipped that while Berkeley’s arguments admit not the slightest refutation, they inspire not the slightest conviction. One suspects that his remarks were inspired by bitterness. Hume set out to disprove God. God was skeptical and Hume no longer exists.

Certain mysteries elude science: The origin of the universe, gravity waves, a cure for cancer, the unified field theory, a theory of everything. The problem of consciousness is one such mystery.

Theology attempts to solve the puzzle, but theology is only a special department of thought produced by the mind by working on a particular aspect of the materials presented to it by the senses.

As we have seen as a consequence of the work of Kant, mental religion functions at the level of rational consciousness; this is more or less the method as well as goal of the investigation of empiric moralists, theologians and scientists. Empiric criticism of the Bible and all mental treatment of the subject of religion, are vitiated by the adoption of so-called reason. And since, as we have pointed out, proof is wanting, “reasonable” theology is a faulty method of exploring the question at issue. For a deeper understanding of reality one must go beyond reason.



At first glance the idea of going beyond reason is anathema to the logical brain. The greatest scientists have made their best discoveries by doing exactly that and asking “what if?” even when “what if?” defies logic. Such “thought experiments” fire the imagination of scientists and science fiction writers both. Great minds have arrived at elegant solutions to mathematical problems by reasoning backwards from a vision of reality. 20th Century philosopher Edward de Bono calls this form of seeing solutions “lateral thinking.” Those for whom God is self-evident call call this kind of vision “faith.” Thought experiments go beyond logic and reason and open the door to imagination. Much of science after the 20th Century including Einstein’s relativity theory, quantum physics, and the discovery of black holes relied heavily on “thought experiments” that went beyond logic. Einstein asked us to imagine traveling in an elevator at the speed of light. Schrodinger asked us to posit a cat in a box that lives or dies acccording to our own subjective perception. The author of the Cogito, Rene Descartes imagined the physical world as an elaborate illusion and asked how we could be sure that it’s real. Plato reminded us that just as prisoners in a cave see shadows flickering on a wall and perceive reality, we are often deluded by senses and mind in our empiric interpretation of phenomenon. How can we know what is real?



The precious logic we use to construct technology fails when we apply it to existence. Our vision of reality can only be fragmented, as the thousands of images on the eye of a bee. With such fragmented vision how can we see the ultimate reality? How can we see the self with the eye of reason?

Rational thinking and analysis is deconstructive. It breaks things down. Breaking things down and reassembling the pieces is the job of a factory worker. Analysis is a primitive function of the mind. To understand the nature of consciousness and God it is necessary to go beyond analysis, to go beyond reason.

The ability to transcend reason has always been a quality of visionaries. Even speculative fiction writers have been able to go beyond the strictures of ordinary ratiocination to create alternative worlds that capture our imaginations. The inventive mythology of Star Wars, for example is so compelling that atheists prefer that universe to our own. Writers imagine possibilities through thought experiments that only later become realities. What was fantasy during the time of Jules Verne: submarines like the Nautilus, space rockets to the moon, and 80 day trips around the world are commonplace today.




Science fiction writers like Ray Bradbury, Stanislaw Lem, and Philip K. Dick writing in the 1950s re-imagined our world as missions to Mars, time travel, and dysfunctional future worlds populated by subjects of the surveillance state, videophones, androids, and self-guided cars. Asimov wrote the rules for robots and Arthur C. Clarke worried about artificial intelligence long before the microprocessor was used in any meaningful way. These men created the mythology of science fiction in the days before color television, when NASA was using slide rules to calculate rocket trajectories.

Where scientists insist on rigorous proof for the existence for consciousness and the mind, they are intellectually sloppy when it comes to time travel, warp speed, and cold fusion. These possibilities are not ruled out, since they are “sexy” research projects. God is not a sexy research project. So while no “proof” exists, no proof is sought. But scientists are not immune to creative ideas where philosophy meets science fiction. As long as they don’t cross the line between scientific inquiry and mysticism.


This is why modern thinkers have no difficulty discussing such ideas as whether robots are intelligent or whether androids have rights. The popular cult classic Bladerunner is based on a Philip K. Dick story, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” It’s ironic that in an age when humans have fewer rights elite academics discuss the rights of machines. Have we already reached the age of Terminator where robots rule? Is artificial intelligence possible? Or is intelligence a human characteristic by definition. What about time travel? What is the nature of space and time? Science fiction nerds love the Matrix films. But isn’t the Matrix really an extension of Plato’s metaphor about the cave? And isn’t Plato’s cave a concrete way of explaining the age-old Eastern concept of Maya, or the illusory world. Isn’t the Matrix an example of how we are tricked by the subjective universe of Maya?



Inventor Ray Kurzweil developed the OCR technology we use at the supermarket. Every item that has a bar code on it owes something to Kurzweil. At Stevie Wonder’s suggestion he developed text to voice readers to reproduce books in spoken form. Kurzweil also developed the synthesizer into the modern keyboard. Recently he developed the idea that in the future we shall live forever by “uploading” ourselves into the cloud and thus becoming immortal.

Of course, scientists and science fiction fans are open to these conceits. But try to discuss the soul, transcendental life, or God, and the window closes. Ideas of God and faith are irrational, mere superstition, not worthy of discussion. It’s fine to talk about wormholes in time or thinking robots, but talk of divinity is indulging in the “woo woo” factor. Living in a computer-generated virtual reality is cool; realizing that one’s eternal self is somehow involved in a temporary illusory world called maya is not cool.

Science fiction and mad speculation that goes “beyond reason” is cool, as long as it takes place in a film, on a screen, or on an iPhone. Princess Lea is cool. "The Force Be With YOU" is cool. Devotional spirituality and mantra meditation is unreasonable madness, fanaticism, perhaps even dangerous terrorism.



There is a fine line between genius and mysticism, between mystics and madmen. For this reason, saints often appear to be madmen. Since the lateral thinking and faith of the great saints goes beyond reason, it often appears to be madness. Saint Francis, when he appeared before the Pope and asked him to follow the simple life, was considered a dangerous madman as was Jesus Christ when he overturned the stalls of the money-changers in the Great Temple of Jerusalem.




In the language of Vaishnavism, a great saint who has the outward appearance of a madman is called an avadhuta. Such persons defy normal social conventions and challenge our rational thinking. Gaura Kishore Dāsa Babaji was an elevated saint and was recognized by scholars as a deep thinker. While many gurus constructed temples and spent lavishly on meditation centers, Babaji lived in poverty under a boat on the banks of the Ganges. He scrupulously avoided materialists and hypocrites. While his honesty and scholarship were unquestionable, Gaura Kishore considered mystic devotion to Krishna superior to wisdom and morality. He was well-acquainted with the conclusions of scripture, but spent his time absorbed in taking the holy name.

Gaura Kishore Das Babaji

At that time in India there were many gurus and mystics who were also experts in logic and reason. Many of these elite teachers were candidates for acharya, the next important teacher in the line. To most casual observers, Gaura Kishore Dās Babaji appeared to be a madman, an avadhuta. And yet, In spite of Babaji’s apparently irrational behavior and eccentric outward appearance, the highly learned Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati accepted him as his guru, considering that he was the true continuation of the Gaudiya line. While Bhaktisiddhānta himself was a distinguished astrologer, Sanskrit scholar, and Bhagavatam commentator who would go on to publish thousands of books, he esteemed Babaji Mahārāja’s devotion above his own scholarship and rational analysis.

Bhaktisiddhānta Saraswati as a young scholar




Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Beyond Reason


Bleak Futuristic Landscpape: Wither Exploitation?

Faith and the irrational

I am not a Luddite; nor do I advocate a return to the Stone Age. Neither am I a member of the Flat Earth Society.  Yet I wonder, how consumerism and comfort surpassed wisdom as the focus of civilization? And how has the word faith become an obscenity? All I am saying is that, given the scope for paradox in modern physics, there must be room in modern thinking for something as illogical as faith. The world we live in does not conform to logic, however much we may argue to the contrary. Logic after all is the idea that we might reduce perceivable phenomena to words or numbers. But sometimes the numbers just don’t add up; the words don’t do justice. We are left to believe, to have faith.



The Negativity of Intelligence

After all, the function of intelligence is to analyse, to criticize. I arrive at truth by negativity. Aristotle, the great master of classification helps us to understand this negative function.  We classify: we say this is an animal, but it’s not a dog or a cat. It has no fur. It doesn’t walk, it flies. It’s a bird. We know a bird is not a cat, an apple is not a banana. We put things in categories. The best way to understand a problem is to examine all the possible cause of the problem and eliminate the impossible causes. Thus, we arrive at solutions through negativity: “Not this, not that.” The mystics of India apply this meditation to the self. Who am I? Not this, not that.  I am not the table or the chair. I am not my nose or my eye? What am I? The problem is that since the intelligence arrives at solutions through negativity, it’s function is essential doubtful.



When I finally arrive at the idea that I am a spiritual entity, my intelligence has the tendency to apply negativity to this finding. Spirit is illogical, since it partakes of eternity and eternity defies time, a central concept in physics. Never mind that nobody can define exactly what “time” is. God is illogical, since it is a concept that cannot be “proven.” Never mind that in our daily lives we operate without “proof.” If I stand on a bus corner and wait there is no “proof” that the bus will come. I take it on faith. One might argue that my faith in the bus is based on evidence and my faith in God is not. But the arrival of the bus is based on factors beyond my control. If there’s traffic, I might wait for hours. My faith is based on flimsy evidence. My faith in God, is, it seems to me self-evident. I require no proof. I have faith that if I put one foot in front of the other I will move forward. I have no way of explaining how to walk or the difference between static and dynamic equilibrium. Walking is self-evident to me. In trying to justify the existence of God I run into the same kinds of paradoxes that confront physicists when they try to explain gravity waves or the space-time continuum. And yet I am not convinced that paradox is impossible or that the world is entirely logical.

Logical and Illogical Thinking

Philosophy itself has the capacity for both logical and illogical thinking. It must in order to arrive at conclusions. Sometimes we find that only by positing something illogical is it possible to reach a deeper truth. Einstein imagined sitting on a beam of light and dreamed the theory of relativity. Mystic revelation transcends dogma. Where someone like Hawking is brilliant is precisely when he dreams of something impossible like black holes that allow no light to escape. But when the scientists try to encode their worldview as a kind of religion they fall into the same black hole of dogma that has dogged religionists since the time of Galileo. Real science, like true philosophy, escapes dogma to seek out a more perfect vision.

Vision and Imagination

If science fiction writers like Ray Bradbury, Philip K. Dick or Stanislaw Lem were characterized by vision and imagination, modern popular science writers are often little better than hacks. Their writing and teaching is a reaction against the dogma of religionists in ages gone by, but fails to answer the challenge of faith, of true mystic vision.

Science Fiction Writer Philip K. Dick after mystical epiphany

Popular Science Writers

Popular science writers are so busy extolling the positivism of Comte that they fail to see the consequences of his failed world view. As boosters for scientism they avoid mentioning the pitfalls of materialistic exploitation that have accompanied modern scientific discovery. Instead they try to seduce us with their Star Wars fantasies of time travel, warp speed, and parallel universes, even while eschewing as fantasy faith in God or the eternal soul. This betrays a shallow understanding of not only of the consequences of their materialistic views but of epistemology.



With their facile understanding of positivism, it’s hard to believe the present day advocates of atheism and popular science like Dawkins and Hawking would pass even a freshman philosophy class. They have made their assumptions and abide by them without questioning the authority of the 19th Century minds like Comte, Darwin, Kant, and Nietzsche who formulated them. They may be charismatic representatives of popular science, fascinating debaters and witty speakers, but they are hardly trained in philosophy, or even introspective enough to think through the basic problems that mystified Hegel, Ortega y Gasset, and Henri Bergson.


The Taboos of Science

Those who popularize the imperialism of physics are represented by personalities like Dawkins or Hawking. They offer us cheaper laptops, flying self-guided Google cars, and trips to outer space at warp speed, even while the polar ice-caps melt, the oceans rise, coral reefs die. Animal species face mass extinction, air is unbreathable, the earth is fracked. In Flint, Michigan people can set fire to the water they drink. Thanks to the paradigm of pollution set into place by Comte and ratified by our charming and charistmatic scientific priesthood. But the high priests of science lack the philosophical basis to ask meaningful questions. This doesn’t mean that scientists are fools or that we should become Luddites who At present, the questions of the great minds of academe are strictly limited by the paradigm that dominates their fields, that of “practical and useful truths.”

And so a great mind like Hawking believes that the cosmos has no purpose, that it is not a “useful question.” In his case, philosophy is indeed dead; lacking a deep philosophy for himself, he wants it to be dead for everyone else. And sadly, many believe him. Few philosophers challenge the imperialism of science and physics. Those who dare are silenced.