QUESTIONS SCIENCE
CAN NEVER ANSWER
Ayad Gharbawi
February 20,
2010 – Damascus, Syria
There
are far too many aspects of ‘Reality’ that atheistic scientists/philosophers
simply cannot and will never be able to ‘explain’.
Why?
Not
because, as they repeatedly say, our technology has not reached an answer yet,
but simply because, our minds are not capable of understanding.
For
example, we can never define or describe what any colour ‘means’ to a
human who has never seen that particular colour.
The
same goes for sound – music, for example. We can never express or
explain how we can feel depressed and/or ecstatic when we hear music to any
person.
These
‘expressions of one’s emotions as per hearing music’ cannot ever be ‘explained’
fully to any listener or reader, precisely because what we happen to ‘feel’
cannot be cut, copied and pasted to anyone listening to us.
Take
pain. Our personal pain. It is impossible for a raped human to ever be able to
convey the exact feelings she has been through to anyone else – including other
raped women.
Take
a war experience. No soldier can ever express his experiences to anyone. And
even if a classroom of students are reduced to tears for one hour during the
lecture, then guess what – after a few days, the words of that soldier will be
completely forgotten.
I am
simply giving examples, trying to show how we humans have limitations in our
abilities to fathom and comprehend in all their depths and emotions that with
which are confronted with.
You
meet a human and they really impress you with their charisma and vitality. But
look at yourself a week from that event, and then, what do you feel? You will
eventually feel nothing from that initial exciting event with that charismatic
person, precisely because, most events do not last upon our minds and on our
memories.
Notice,
that I am not saying that there are no emotions, thoughts or events that will
last forever hurting and/or making us happy.
That
is not what I am saying.
But,
what I am saying is this: that 99.99% of beautiful and/or ugly emotions,
memories, thoughts and/or events will sooner or later be forgotten by us
humans.
So,
pay attention all of you out there romantics and lovers – yes, you may
be intoxicated by the figure facing you, but, try to think and understand, that
in a year or two from now, that self-same figure will be nothing more than a
decomposing rat in your mind.
Let
us look further for more examples where our minds meet the limits of their
comprehension.
‘Where’
are ‘you’ when ‘you’ are dreaming a vivid dream?
Already,
linguistically, we see so much confusion – obviously, note all the required
inverted commas – precisely because the words representing the concepts are themselves
so uncertain and imprecise!!
‘Who’
is dreaming? By stating ‘who is dreaming’, we are then assuming that there is a
one ‘person’ who is doing the dreaming. But, is that correct?
Is
the ‘dreamer’ different’ from ‘who’ you are when you are awake?
If
the ‘dreamer’ is, in fact not the conscious you, then does that mean there are
two personalities in your mind? And, if there are two persons in your mind,
does that, or can that open to the next and obvious question: can there be more
than two personalities in your mind? If so, how many?
And
if we were to say that, yes, it is the conscious ‘you’ who is dreaming the
vivid dream, and therefore, there is only ‘one’ you in your mind, then what
does that actually mean, as per the question of reality - ‘who’ you are?
Well,
actually, to be truthful – it does not say anything to us.
Why?
Because
when we say ‘you’ are dreaming, then the inevitable question arises:
‘Who’
exactly are ‘you’?
And
how do ‘you’ know that it is ‘you’ who is actually dreaming this particular
vivid dream?
You
see, the very question ‘who are you?’ is a question that requires an entire
study on its own.
I
think, we are beginning to enter a world of abstractions, that are quite
difficult to comprehend and analyze with any proper precision.
And
that brings me neatly back to my original proposition: that there are areas, or
realms in the mind that the latter cannot ever ‘understand’.
They
are far too imprecise, vague, formless and indefinite when we functionally try to
‘relate’ to them in any meaningful manner.
Other
examples, showing limitations to our understanding.
What
are the constituents of what we see?
What
does it mean that we are living in a planet with six billion other human
beings?
What
does it mean when I read about how each of my cells are functioning all the way
to how every organ is acting and interacting in my body and multiply that with
six billion other human?
How do
we relate to these facts?
The
answer is: nothing.
Yes,
of course, you may be ‘awed’ for a while, but time will soon take care of that
feeling.
Another
example.
You
are sitting with a friend in a cafe and you are having a pleasant conversation.
Next
you remember something: you, the Observer, has had your right hand move a
little bit. You ask yourself:
“But,
why did my right hand move? Was I feeling itchy or uncomfortable in my right
hand and in its position? No, the answer is no. So why did my right hand move?
And, more interestingly, ‘who’ or ‘what’ ordered my right hand to move, since
obviously it was not my conscious, awake, alert Self that did the ordering,
since I did not have any awareness of that ‘order’ being given out.”
Big
questions, loaded questions here.
First
of all, let us answer the obvious enquiries: there were no physical or emotional
discomforts that ‘necessitated’ the moving of the right arm.
The
right arm therefore moved ‘for no reason’.
Here
we come to a problem for our modern Man: how can anything exist or occur
without any ‘reason’ that causes this event to be activated?
Can
an event be ‘activated’ by nothing and for no reason?
So,
we go back to our Observer, and ask him: “Try to think, why did you move your
right arm?”
And,
after thinking, he responds, that: “There was absolutely no ‘reason’ for me to
move my right arm, since I was completely satisfied and content in my
circumstance, whereby, I was having my pleasant conversation with my friend.”
Fine,
after studying this particular situation, we find that there was, indeed, no
‘reason’ why our Observer moved his right arm.
So,
now we go right back to my question:
·
What is it that
caused the brain to give the proper neurochemical messages to have the right
arm of this man to move it?
·
Why were the
neurochemicals transmitted in the first place alerted to act and order the
movement to take place, when there were no need for that very move in the first
place?
·
And if there were no need
for the right arm to move, and yet, despite that fact, the mind/brain of our
Observer, did indeed, transmit that ordering message, then can we say that
the brain/mind of our Observer possibly demand and send orders that have
absolutely no reason or functionality as per the person who is forced to obey
the order?
Fine,
so we have thus far understood that our Observer has ‘moved’ his right arm while
his conscious mind was not aware of that order being given out.
Notice
again, the language-linguistic-grammatical problem we face when
discussing the mind here. I wrote that the Observer has ‘moved’ his right arm.
But, of course, our Observer has no conscious-memory of his ever moving his
right arm. Therefore, that sentence is linguistically wrong.
It
is not the Observer who ‘moved’ his right arm – as we have seen above.
Anyway
the Language problem that we face when we discuss the Mind, is another chapter
or another topic, that we will, indeed discuss, later, but not in this chapter.
So,
we ask: ‘who’ or ‘what’ ordered this insignificant movement? Obviously, we can
say that the ‘order’ came from the brain/mind of the Observer in question.
Very
well, but that doesn’t really tell us all that much.
You
may say, it is his ‘Unconscious’ that ‘ordered’ the right arm to move
and the very same Unconscious did and enacted this order for no reason. So,
there’s your answer for you.
Yes,
I expected that one.
But
what exactly do you mean by the ‘Unconscious’?
It
is a good term/concept, but you have still not answered my question. Because if
you will insist in telling me that the Unconscious of our Observer did the
deed, then I, as any investigator, will have to ask you, “Well then: who is
this Unconscious you are talking about?”
I
may get this answer: the Unconscious is a ‘part’ of the repressed Mind which
contains numerous emotions, feelings, thoughts, memories and so on that the
Observer does not wish to know about and/or is genuinely unaware of. And it is
that part of the Unconscious mind of our Observer that ‘gave the order’ for his
right arm to move, even though there was no reason for that event.
I
cannot respond to that answer precisely because the answer is an abstraction
within abstractions – it may well be the correct answer, but I cannot verify it
either way.
Either
way, we can certainly say: that the Mind of Man does, at times, act and move
and think and feel for ‘no reason’.
So
what conclusion can we say, when we say that there are limitations to what the
Mind of Man has?
These
‘limitations’ can cause – fear, confusion, insecurity and sheer
misunderstandings amongst people and between people.
Why fear
and anxiety?
Because
that which is indefinable, imprecise and elusive to related to is frightening.
But
we also need to learn to accept them as being part of the constitution of our
brains: and, perhaps, we can then try to reduce the fear of being insecure,
isolated and/or anxious when we feel unsure of why it is we are, for example,
‘feeling’ negative emotions.
