1 6 S p i r i t ua l i t y S t u d i e s 5 - 1 S p r i n g 2 0 1 9 3 Reason and the Senses It seems to me then, that in the present state of science, reason is really not able to cope with the quantum nature of matter and energy, which is revealed even in the simplest experiment with two slits. It would also be good to ponder that we do not normally view objects as functions of probability and as in superposition of possibilities which will get a partial definition only after our observation. Our reason has difficulty to picture this state of affairs, and is not able, it seems to me, to overcome the barrier I presented in the previous paragraph. But our understanding of objects as distinct entities which are as they are, with their properties clearly defined and independent of our observation, is a part of our reason itself – part of its presuppositions. Not only our common sense, but also our philosophy and to a significant extent also science, is based on our sensory experience, and this includes also our concepts. Concepts, which are an important part of our reason, are to some extent determined by our sensory experience. It is not a coincidence that when we think about physical objects, we imagine definite and distinct objects with definite shapes, moving in definite speeds and placed in definite locations. We presume they are there independent of our look. They have definite properties, which are connected with a given object. Yes, we can train our imagination to became familiar with a relativistic view, and to some extent also with the quantum one. It is worth noting that this demanded of us to change our concepts and building blocks of our imagination. Maybe you want to say now that concepts are not part of our reason and that it therefore needed not to be changed in the process of such training. We can accept this, if we want, because, even if it would be better to say our reason was changed, he was certainly capable of doing so. Anyway, we were able to change our concepts, including very fundamental ones, like those of time and space. Thus, the reason seems to be potentially very wide in its range of application and in its potential. But – I want to say again – there seems to be, at least for now, one clear sphere of science, in which no amount of training of reason will suffice for us to fully understand the subject matter, and that is the quantum nature of matter and energy, visible already in the most simple version of double-slit experiment. As an intermezzo, let us consider the question of how it was possible for us to survive, if we perceive so little and in such a distorted way. Let us look at a bee. This is a biological organism, well able to survive and to pass its genes to the next generation. But how much this bee understands of the world around it, and how much it perceives? Sensory apparatus of the bee is extremely limited, just as that of humans, yet it can collect the information needed for the survival of its genes: a bee can found the appropriate flowers repeatedly, fly to and from the beehive, build and repair it, feed the young, and so on. It does not matter that its sensory possibilities are quite limited. It can be unable to perceive almost everything, as long as it can collect the minimum amount of information from the world, if it is just the right information needed for its activities. But, what about its knowledge and understanding? The bee certainly has in its nervous system some representation of the world around it, which is typically sufficient to execute all of the actions it needs for passing its genes. This model and procedures running on it can be called a knowledge or understanding of some kind – it is some kind of internal informational representation of some aspects of reality with a dynamic aspect enabling the adequate action, used for determining these actions; it is also based on its sensory input. But, as we can see, this “reason” of the bee, its “logic”, and also its “language”, are extremely limited – yet they suffice for the genes. Are we different from that? Why should we be? We are – as far as we are biological organisms – also the product of evolution. Yes, we can do much more than bees, and our understanding is much better. But would it not be reasonable to expect that our reason is also severely limited, in ways maybe which we are not able to imagine – just as a bee is not able to imagine its limitations? After all, our reason is, at least to a great extent, if not entirely, based on the workings of our brain, which is, as we all know, just a biological organ, “originally created” by evolution only for the passing of our genes to the next generation – just as our sight, hearing, our legs or our metabolism. It can be expected to be significantly limited as to the ability to comprehend reality as it is in itself.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzgxMzI=