QUESTIONS SCIENCE CAN NEVER ANSWER – Ayad Gharbawi

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.