Abstract
This paper discusses the vital area, whether man has any means to access reality about him and existence, ending the present reign of opinions and speculations. We know whether science or philosophy, man has no known means to access at least a vague glimpse of reality; in science, we simply choose a subjective area for probe, form hypothesis, collect evidence and prove it. This method, the famed scientific method, is yet to find a means to integrate all our scientific knowledge into a singular unity, or into a unified theory. Stephen Hawking stated this fact in clear terms in his book ' a brief history of time': 'if everything in the universe depends on everything else in a fundamental way, it might be impossible to get close to a full solution by investigating parts of the problem in isolation' ( pg 12)
Certainty is achieved in the isolated area she probed, but in the absence of a clear picture of the totality, we only gain a false sense of certainty on the feats of science.
Science believes there is no inherent meaning about existence. Life was a chance sprouting from the physical system, so the question of meaning does not trouble science at all.
This paper identifies and introduces an inherent 'sense' faculty in man, that often gives him the overall 'sense' of certainty. It is like eyes and ears giving him certain, specific inputs on the reality of existence, making the very notion of a reality to him. The newly introduced 'sense' faculty is what integrate inputs from other known senses, and giving him a sense of the continued reality of life. It is vital that science probe deeper into this mystery faculty and find out its physical base, and if there is anything metaphysical too about it.
Synopsis
Certainty is achieved in the isolated area she probed, but in the absence of a clear picture of the totality, we only gain a false sense of certainty on the feats of science.
Science believes there is no inherent meaning about existence. Life was a chance sprouting from the physical system, so the question of meaning does not trouble science at all.
This paper identifies and introduces an inherent 'sense' faculty in man, that often gives him the overall 'sense' of certainty. It is like eyes and ears giving him certain, specific inputs on the reality of existence, making the very notion of a reality to him. The newly introduced 'sense' faculty is what integrate inputs from other known senses, and giving him a sense of the continued reality of life. It is vital that science probe deeper into this mystery faculty and find out its physical base, and if there is anything metaphysical too about it.
Synopsis
The question of ‘certainty’ of man’s beliefs and theories has always troubled him and his knowledge systems. Though he was blessed with eyes to see and ears to hear and other similar ‘sense’ faculties to observe and perceive the external world, and a ‘mind’ that was able to process all the 'sense' information and make ‘sense’ of what has been observed, he never felt ‘certain’ about the knowledge this source provided. What today he thinks right and true turns fallacious tomorrow. Examples are, ancient 4 elements theory, then the geocentric theory and now the atom and particles theory being challenged by quantum theory. Who knows what will be knowledge tomorrow?
Quantum physics has come out with her verdict that the concept of ‘objective, 'physical' world’ is to be discarded, as such concept is simply the result of man’s subjectively chosen research-methods and his image about himself as a researcher. Reality is simply a unique synergy between a particular subject, the method and the chosen object! Objective reality, a thing of the past!
Niels Bohr, another veteran physicist supports it:
isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interactions with other systems’( book Tao of physics, F.Capra, pg 141)
Mainstream physics is yet to recover from the Quantum shock and yet to make her stand clear and formal.
This raises a central question; Is the ‘whole’ physical? If the concept of ‘objective’ knowledge wrong, what is to be considered ‘certain’ and final knowledge?
This paper intends to draw the attention of all thinking men towards our ‘faculty of Reason’ and its yet unknown role and features, that might offer a solution to the above question of ‘certainty’ of human knowledge. How?
1. Unlike animals, man always had a ‘sense’(rational) faculty that helped him to depart from the animal stage and build human civilization. What really was this category of ‘sense’ or Reason?
2. When someone argues aimlessly, unrelated to the subject-matter, everyone understands the inconsistency. How? Think a bit deeper, and it will be revealed that man has this mystery faculty to ‘sense’ logical-consistency and inconsistency! Or, logical ‘order’ and disorder.
3. This faculty is similar to other ‘sense’ faculties of man, say eyes and ears, being all sense faculties aimed at giving man certain specialized experience of Nature’s different ‘categories’. Here, man is specially bestowed with this mystery sense faculty.
4. Each sense faculty of man, eyes, ears or tongue, shows certain not yet noticed ‘predilections’, or inherent likes and dislikes, hinting towards certain directions of Nature. Directions means, certain pre-set goals man should move and achieve! Was this faculty aimed to end the certainty issue of man? A faculty that might share Nature’s ultimate ‘predisposition’ with a man?
5. How does our faculty of Reason works? Paper delves into its routine ‘deductive’ function and then the yet to be recognized ‘Prismatic’ function.
Though man always recognized and accepted the role of his faculty of Reason in acts of inferences, especially scientific inferences, no close study was ever undertaken as to what is Reason, and how does it work. We all know, that Kant’s elaborate, famed book on Reason touches only its reach and limits, but there is no mention of what Reason as such is!
We know that theories of science get their life or certainty, exclusively when the ‘consistency’ or ‘order’ factor between the presented argument or evidence, and the theory in hand. This logical consistency factor is, without any doubt, a ‘sensing’ act, that is, sensing of such yet to be grasped ‘order’/logical consistency’ factor. It is realized here, that understanding of this factor might need a good amount of intellectual strain and abstract thinking because science has taken it as granted, that it is an attribute of man’s yet unverified term, ‘intelligence’ or understanding (‘understanding’, Descartes’s term)
Author’s findings in this field might be half-cooked and incomplete, hence the purpose of this paper is to invite attention of all thinking class in the world, especially philosophers because, once its relevance is grasped, this knowledge might throw unexpected paradigm shifts in our knowledge-discipline of epistemology.
Discovery of this faculty might hint at Nature’s intent to share genuine insight into her secrets with man. There is no logic to assume, that Nature has kept all her doors to her secrets closed from man, and he can only go on creating ‘mind-created’ myths for ever! It might end the present pluralistic tendency in Philosophy, that goes on creating multiple view-points, ‘isms’ and theories, signifying nothing.
This finding, that might look insignificant at first sight, could bring in major paradigm-shifts in the way we thought we acquire knowledge!
Main Paper ( word count: 4206, including reference)
The question taken up in this post is, ‘how scientists and others (mankind as a whole) fix certainty of their theories’. This author would like to explain why he is interested in this question.
He began exploring this question in the mid-1990s. He set out first to thoroughly study the ‘scientific method’.
He found that in the currently popular ‘induction’ method, scientists first draw a hypothesis and start collecting evidence that support the theory. In parliament of governments, a speaker argues his point, listing supportive data. In seminars, scholars present their papers, listing supportive arguments to prove his point. The question is, what is that special ‘relation’, or simply the ‘sense’ factor that exists between the arguments or evidence presented and the inferences arrived at, that compel the listeners to ‘agree’ on the theory, or the argued point? How do they judge that the evidences/arguments presented actually ‘support’ the point raised? Of course all the parties in the group presumed to have sufficient knowledge of the subject presented. But apart from this precondition, what is that compels the judges to accept the point of argument, or the theory proposed?
Yes, there always exists an element of ‘logical connection’, or simply some mystery element of ‘sense’, between the arguments/evidence presented and the inference arrived at. This logical connection or the element of some kind of an ‘order’, a unity, or a ‘consistency’ that no one can refute or deny is the crux of every human inference! Something appeals to our inherent sense of ‘order’.
We also get to instantly notice instances of ‘false’ dis-agreements, ie, many a times the other party simply chooses to close his mind and Reason to this inherent appeal to his ‘sense’! Even if he realizes the ‘sense’ in the argument or theory, he pretend disagreement for ideological, or simply out of personal reasons. This is most common in our present society. It means, if someone disagree with your point it implies either he did not get the logic of your argument or he is pretending his disagreement for reasons referred above.
At first we might feel, what is the big deal about this finding, because this was the way man used to debate for ages, on all subjects from day -light to metaphysics! We used to call it the work of our Reason, or the ‘rational faculty’ of man! But what was the real role of this ‘rational’ faculty in human-debates?
Descartes called it ‘human-understanding’. We know it is a very vague explanation. What is understanding? Many others called it ‘intuition’. What is intuition?
Ancient Greek masters considered this faculty, Reason, something divine; human Reason ‘mirrors’ the mind of God! It was based on this ‘divinity’ belief that Plato had presented his theory of ‘forms’, a theory that says there exists an ideal ‘form’, a perfect ‘universal model’ for every object and idea in the world. When man perceives anything through his senses, or whatever he infers via his mind, he perceives only an imperfect ‘copy’ of such hidden ‘forms’.
Our question and subject matter is way different from Plato’s ‘forms’, as ‘forms’ are about ‘universals’.
Though we argue at a later stage of this paper, that faculty of Reason indeed was bestowed by nature in man for him to ‘sense’ her essence, what now we undertake here is to find out Reason’s role as an internal ‘sense-organ’ that detects the ‘order’ or consistency factor that exists between the ‘universal’ (or the major premise) in syllogisms and the arrived at conclusion. So, our subject matter is quite different from the idea of Plato’s ‘forms’.
There definitely exists some kind of an ‘order’ content, or ‘sense’(consistency) content between the universal premise and the conclusion, and it is what our faculty of Reason helps us to catch or detect.
We are familiar with similar catching of the ‘sound’ signals by our sense organ of ears, and ‘taste’ factor or taste ‘category’ by our tongue. Touch by the skin and smell by the nose. Use common sense or whatever our highest known faculty of understanding, similarity of this ‘catching’ or detecting of the said ‘order’ content can not be seen different from the similar catching of physical phenomena or ‘existential ‘categories’ by our external sense-organs! Yes, though it might look common-place due to our over familiarity with the process of grasping ‘rationality’ in hundreds of situations in life every day, our new finding may not excite us instantly. But upon a little deep thought, we might find its explosive relevance in our epistemology, and the way man generally acquires knowledge.
Yes, what our good old Reason was doing all these ages was ‘sensing’ (like the similar ‘sensing’ of their particular objects by each of our external sense-organs) the ‘order’ or simply, the ‘sense’ factor that exists between all our logical inferences and the respective ‘presented’ evidences or arguments! This was how scientists and others felt the much central sense of ‘certainty’ about their theories and findings! It was exactly like an empirical verification of any objective reality by our eyes and ears. When an elephant is seen by the eyes, its certainty is established. When the ears hear the sound of a parrot, its presence is established.
What is a ‘sense’ organ?
It is better we delve a bit into the accepted definitions of a sense-organ at this point.
“A faculty by which the conditions or properties of things are perceived.
Five major senses were traditionally considered: vision, hearing, smell, taste, and touch. In addition,
Sense, in biology and medicine: “the faculty of sensory reception; the ability to convey specific types of external or internal stimuli to the brain and perceive them”(2)
Most of the definitions agree to the point, that it is a faculty. A faculty simply means, man’s volition has no role in it. He is simply the receiver of the benefits of the ‘faculty’. The second definition given above, as we observe, links ‘brain’ in the process, as per the tradition of Science today. As per her tradition, reality is established only when a phenomenon has a physical connection.
The definitions above does not specify, sense organ should necessarily have a bodily ‘orifice’. If such a clause was there in the definitions, sense of hunger, thirst, pain like ‘sense’ objects would have been in trouble!
How do brain ‘process’ sense data?
Earlier it was believed that, brain has specific area to handle input of each sense. But latest studies reveal, brain does it in an ‘integrated’ process, with the purpose of producing an integrated or wholesome ‘percept’ to man. Wikipedia gives an elaborate illustration:
“Sensory processing deals with how the brain processes sensory input from multiple sensory modalities. These include the five classic senses of vision (sight), audition (hearing), tactile stimulation (touch), olfaction (smell), and gustation (taste). Other sensory modalities exist, for example the vestibular sense (balance and the sense of movement) and proprioception (the sense of knowing one's position in space) Along with Time (The sense of knowing where one is in time or activities). It is important that the information of these different sensory modalities must be relatable. Through sensory processing, the brain can relate all sensory inputs into a coherent percept, upon which our interaction with the environment is ultimately based” (3)
Here we could see the central relevance of the not yet recognized role of the ‘sense-organ’ of Reason. If we have hidden ‘sense’ faculty for ‘time’ and ‘proprioception’, how can we ignore the most central ‘order- sensing’ of whatever has been ‘sensed’ by classical ‘sense-sources?
So, the classical definitions of ‘sense’ organ do not clash with our claim, that ‘Reason’ is also a sense organ. It is a ‘pang’, similar to the pangs of hunger and thirst, for ‘logical order’ and consistency. Or more simply put, for the ‘sense’ factor of what we conclude as true.
But please note, we ‘sense’ the ‘order’ or consistency content only between the ‘presented’ evidence, or the argued points; Reason never consider unknown evidence at the time of presenting the theory even if they might contradict the present conclusion, or known but intentionally concealed evidence. This factor is what makes ‘scientific’ empiricism relative and weak. Dr. Whitehead, veteran scientists wrote;
‘discussions on the method of science wander off onto topic of experiment. But experiment is nothing else than a mode of cooking the facts for the sake of exemplifying the law’ (4)
This particular feature of scientific enquiry point towards the central need of keeping the mind open for newer and newer spectrum of ideas and insight, till final truth is found by Science.
But what about the logical ‘order’ content in inferences of anti-social men, robbers, terrorists and fascists?
We know, robbers and terrorists always form hypotheses and list their premises within their minds or discuss in their group, aiming at the most appropriate method of strike. There is an ‘order’ content, also in the inference of a robber and terrorist who decides to kill a witness to his crime, in a sensible move to save himself from law!
So, can we bestow any divinity to Reason that ancient Greeks had thought it possess, being it the ‘mirror’ of God’s mind? Perhaps no. But it is the sole means now known to man for knowing the secrets of existence, if not a final ‘equation’ of her structural plan, at least it’s ‘predilection’, a more fundamental reality about her!
Eyes, ears etc have certain clear ‘predilections’. Does Reason also have them?
Above line of thought had made the author plunging again into his intellectual seeking, for findings answers to ‘what are the further features of our faculty of reason’ beyond ‘sensing’ the ‘sense’ ( the order or the consistency) factor in inferences?
His new area of seeking was around the question of ‘what makes man experiencing a compulsion for seeking truth and knowledge, or for bringing ‘order’ into own life, and also for the world?
We know, our known sense-organs are ‘ever open windows’ towards Nature. In every wake moment of life, they go on gathering and providing data to us. Only sleep gives us some relief from their assault.
Kant thought, sense-perceptions give man the most impure data, so he gave ‘Reason’ all the credit for ‘ordering’ the sense data into certain pre-set, life supportive ‘categories’. He thought, mind has certain inherent structural divisions, that arrange sense-data into sensible ‘categories’ of knowledge.
But he never attempted the task of defining what Reason as such was! A Lancaster university scholar Dr. Garrath Williams in one of his papers stated the above crucial fact about Kant’s famous book, ‘Critique of Pure Reason’
“Kant rarely discusses reason as such. This leaves a difficult interpretative task: just what is Kant’s general and positive account of reason?” (5)
So, we need not search CPR , the most reputed book on the subject on Reason for any answer to our question. Kant’s book concentrated on listing the reach and limits of Reason, a phenomenon he never attempted to define, what really it was!
But he gave us sure hint about certain ‘inherent urges’ or propensities of Reason:
“Experience is by no means the only field to which our understanding can be confined. Experience tells us what is, but not that it must be necessarily what it is and not otherwise. It therefore never gives us any really general truth; and our REASON, which is ‘particularly anxious’ for that class of knowledge, is roused by it rather than satiated” (6)
Yes, like our eyes and ears exhibit certain ‘like’ preferences or ‘predilections’, Reason also exhibit similar vital predilections, like Kant had hinted. Eyes’ preference for ‘aesthetic’ ambience is popular, as the similar predilection of ears for melodies as opposed to nagging, disturbing sounds. Tongue’s almost universal predilection for sweet taste is also famous. It’s dislikes are also universal, too bitter and too sour tastes!
Similarly, man universally experience an inherent ‘compulsion’ (or urge) for justice, order, knowledge and truth. Science and religions originated in the world due to this inherent ‘compulsion’ or predilections born out of some inner force that now we recognize as from our ‘inner-sense organ’ of Reason!
Science argues that, such urge for knowledge is part of nature’s better survival plans.
These predilections, similar to the predilections of our external sense-organs is also offered as a proof, that Reason is a sense-organ. Similarity is obvious.
Besides the detecting or catching the ‘sense’ content or ‘order’ content in inferences, Reason believably is the source of giving us an ‘urge’ for analyzing every situation and idea! You start thinking about a new idea, or a new perspective, and lo, the rest is automatic; proportionate to your degree of commitment and interest, a ‘PRISM’ like function of your Reason goes on ‘splitting’ the given idea into its all possible sub-ideas and possibilities! A new ‘spectrum’ of the given idea or situation is risen before you, increasing your arena of insight! This is how Scientists go on producing new ‘hypotheses’, and religious persons, new spiritual insights. This function needs no external proof, as we all ‘experience’ it every time we are into serious, systematic mode of thought. (differentiated from ‘day-dreaming’)
But we should always remember, Reason catches the ‘order’ content only from the ‘given’ or presented spectrum before her! It will entirely depend upon your degree of ‘creativeness’ or the intensity of truth seeking predisposition. The more intensely one seeks, proportionately wider will be the ‘spectrum’ that rises before him.
Robbers and terrorists often might be victims of their past negative experiences in their lives, so they end up opening negative ‘spectrums’ of thought. Every thought is born out from the base premise, or the ‘universals’ we keep. The ‘spectrum’ function of Reason keep on providing us with new perspectives, or new ‘universals’. If we are stuck at old axioms or universals for long, whether we are scientists, philosophers or religious fanatics, only one kind of sub-premises will come out from us. This is because we often do not give ears to the constant call of our ‘reason’ and surrender before her ‘prismatic’ function!
Reason, also conspicuously catch disorder and inconsistency even for issues not supported by the aid of past experiences!
The now famous conviction of the scientific community, that a ‘unified theory’ of all known forms of energy is missing, is a specific evidence of the propensity of Reason for ‘sensing’ ‘disorder’. Scientific community, especially its most learned ones are quite aware that, all their theories are mere ‘workable’ models of reality. Man as on today, doesn’t have any method to solve or find answer for what is ‘existence’ or how cosmos runs as a complete system.
Stephen Hawking, the recently expired famous scientist admitted it:
“I shall take the simple-minded view that a theory is just a model of the universe…it exists only in our minds and does not have any other reality (whatever that might mean)” (8)
CARLO ROVELLI, a theoretical physicist working on quantum gravity and on foundations of space-time physics at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France and member of the Intitut Universitaire de France says:
“We are very far from the final theory of the world. In my field, in physics, I think extremely far. Every hope of saying, well we are almost there, we've solved all the problems, is nonsense.
So summarizing, I think science is not about data; it's not about the empirical content, about our vision of the world. It's about overcoming our own ideas, and about going beyond common sense continuously” (7)
So all our theories and ideas, whether that of science or philosophy, are mind-created. Can’t man ever hope of having at least a dim glimpse of ultimate reality? Is the door of such ultimate knowledge permanently closed before him? Are they robots, programmed to live with their self-made synthetic realities?
Attention of learned readers is sought towards another instance of Reason’s compulsion to accept similar sensible, universal contentions. Remember how the entire mankind readily accepted the American revolutionists’ contention, that ‘Liberty’ is an ‘inalienable’ Right of man! Reason’s dicta are irresistible, like a ‘tree’ before the eyes can not be refuted by any one with eyes!
If no final truth is accessible to man, what is the relevance of Reason as a sense-organ?
The ‘order’ content, or ‘sense’ content in life and world, though we have here in this post touched only its presence in every inference situation, at close look, it exhibits its larger potential and possibilities too. We learned that, sense-organs are our only direct link with Nature and her secrets.
She has kind of enclosed us in a particular experience world, where eyes gives us only limited range of vision.( it can not see microbes with naked eyes. Eyes will go blind if exposed to brightness beyond a point) Ears can not hear sound inputs below or above a certain range. If exposed to sound beyond a point, ear-drums will simply break, leaving man deaf!
This faculty of conceiving the ‘order’ or ‘sense’ content in everything should compel us to be convinced, that existence as such can not be bereft of ‘sense’ and meaning. Animals and plants are believably not troubled by such questions of ‘sense’ and meaning of life. But man is; he can even go neurotic at not finding ‘sense’ of events in life! Many lives lived by dedicated scientists and philosophers, and the pangs for truths they might have encountered are beyond doubt, real! Their life changing inventions and great books are the evidence.
Hence, this mysterious ‘sense-revealing’ faculty is the sole means or ‘link’ that exists between the secrets of Existence and man! Each living species is bestowed with a special package of sense faculties so that they could achieve their given destiny. Observe how dogs are blessed with extra ‘sense’ of smell and man, with a special package of the ‘sense’ of Reason.
Is it not, that his ‘prismatic’ function of Reason one day expected to give man some glimpse of the ultimate reality?
About the simple crux of such reality, here is an example; what is the ultimate reality about you and me? Is it not our temperamental disposition (the personal-traits) than our biological structure? Yes, existence as such will certainly have a ‘predilection’ or a predisposition, and it will be the ultimate reality about her! Even if the scientists dissect me and you up to the deep cell level, will they find the dispositional reality about you and me? So, it is a grave fallacy of Science that they are after the physical structure of the world for finding the ‘reality’ about her.
What we should strictly discard here is one of man’s intellectual ‘rubbishes’, ( thanks to B. Russell for that term!) that beyond the known realm of Science lies an Almighty, worship seeking God of Religions! Ultimate reality we seek is not a God in the above referred religious-sense, but a ‘sensible’ explanation for man being here in Existence. Our ‘sense’ of reason constantly murmurs, that it can not be a ‘zero-sum’, sense-less game as Science hints.
Unlike the typical physical-objects of our external sense-organs, the object of this newly found sense-organ has a mystery-element. When evoked, it gives man, plain ‘sense’!
One day it could give us plain sense as to why we are here in life! Please note, the ultimate truth of life and existence for man may be a ‘clue’ to his actual ‘relation’ with existence, perhaps not like that between an electron and an atom, but like that between a baby and her mother, an emotional, or non-mechanical tie! We know, that for Science, this line of thinking is blasphemous. She is obstinate, not to entertain such a line of thought.
This non-mechanical aspect of life and existence had never entered the imagination of Science. She has been obsessed with her conclusion that existence cannot be anything but a physical, mind-less affair! She often cites laws of Logic to support her stand. But what is Logic ultimately? It is only a mathematical exercise of ensuring consistency with whatever ‘universal’ premises we keep. If such universal premises are un-verified axioms, lo, what Logic produce will be consistent only with such unverified stuff! Wish to cite here a dedicated blog-post on the subject by an independent mind-researcher, Abraham J.Palakudy: (9)
http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.in/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html
Dr.Carlo Rovelli (we have already met him above) has shared his thought about the obstinacy of science too:
“I think that the scientists who say I don't care about philosophy, it's not true they don't care about philosophy, because they have a philosophy. They are using a philosophy of science. They are applying a methodology. They have a head full of ideas about what is the philosophy they're using; just they're not aware of them, and they take them for granted, as if this was obvious and clear. When it's far from obvious and clear. They are just taking a position without knowing that there are many other possibilities around that might work much better, and might be more interesting for them”(10)
Science is blind about the ‘software’ aspect behind what is physical, it being obviously the ‘hardware’ part of reality: Cited here is another blog-post by the Google-blogger we have already met above, Abraham J.Palakudy: (11)
This author has witnessed how mind often goes beyond its hard walls of time and space; he used to practice Hypnotism as a hobby during his college days. Among the dozens of experimental subjects he encountered while practicing hypnotic trance, using verbal suggestions, at least one in 10 was found exhibiting ‘clairvoyance faculties’.
That is, their real-time describing of men and events at far away places, where such subjects had never even visited in their life-time! This author took pains to verify such events and places, as to whether the descriptions were real or not. All were absolutely true. He used to give these subjects sealed envelops with a particular playing card inside. In 9 out of 10 cases, the subject correctly said what card was inside!
It proves that, our overt mind is a kind of synthetic ‘reality making device’ as a feed for our regular mind, it’s contents and line drastically varied for each person. It is open for him to handle it the way he likes. Here, the role of ‘sense-organs’ is central. Sense organs are the Nature destined windows towards the external world, through which she lets each living species what is required for it to experience life in her destined, chosen way! Wish to share with the readers following paper on ‘Sense-organs’ by the mind-researcher/blogger, Abraham J.Palakudy: (12) http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.in/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html
But some aspects of his knowing faculties, as we have observed from the above clairvoyance experiments, always remain beyond the limitations of time and space!
If he seek to live with ‘sense’ at every step, freeing him from the magical realities of the world, it is up to him to suppress the mind adequately and seek the light of his ‘super-mind’, that is his ‘sense of Reason’ frequently.
Nature, it makes sense to believe, possesses beyond her physical structure, an emotional structure and dimension too, and it need not be a God in the sense that religions are keeping faith. Our faculty of Reason, aided with her ‘prismatic’ function, has limitless potential to unravel it one day in future.
The relevance of what all has been explained above was , that ‘sense-organs’, whether external or internal like the one that we just met, are the sole source of man for whatever knowledge he has. While the external gives us unorganized data, the newly met internal sense-organ of Reason gives us ‘sense’ as to how to live with the former.
The task of proving, that Reason is a sense-organ
How can we be ‘scientifically’ convinced that Reason is also a ‘sense-organ’ like our external sense-organs like eyes and ears? We have already gone through all the logical points. But we usually believe firmly only if believes are supported by some physical, that pertains to the proof by our external sense-observations.
We usually observe the brain images when eyes see, or ears hear their objects. We better adopt the same physical method to verify the sense-organ role of Reason too. We might have many dedicated institutions that study ‘senses-organs’ in modern world. One of them can do the ‘physical’ job for us, by analyzing the brain-waves when an experimental- subject experience the ‘sense’ in an inference situation. If the brain-waves match with that of the external sense-organs in their sense-catching mode, it will prove that Reason also is a sense-organ.
---------------------------End ----------------------------------
Authored by: Abraham J.Palakudy (He is a mind and reason, metaphysics, polity and spirituality researcher and seeker)
Contact him at email: ajoseph1@rediffmail.com
Twitter: Voice of philosophy@jopan1
References:
(4) Dr. Alfred North Whitehead’s paper ‘Foresight’, part-1, chapt-V1,cited in book ‘Essays in philosophy’, edited by Houston Peterson, a Washington Square Press book, published by pocket books, USA, page 367
(6) Critique of Pure Reason, Kant, page 266
(7) ‘A brief History of time’, Stephen Hawking, page-10)
(8) Carlo Rovelli, Paper Link: https://www.edge.org/conversation/carlo_rovelli-science-is-not-about-certainty-a-philosophy-of-physics
(9) Google Blogger and mind Researcher Abraham J.Palakudy, Link: http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.in/2016/07/why-our-understanding-of-logic-needs.html
(10) Carlo Rovelli, paper link : https://www.edge.org/conversation/carlo_rovelli-science-is-not-about-certainty-a-philosophy-of-physics
(11) Google Blogger and mind-researcher, Abraham J.Palakudy, Link:
(12) Google blogger and mind researcher, Abraham J.Palakudy http://thesparkleofhumanreason.blogspot.in/2016/07/sense-organs-of-man-are-they-natures.html
