Now i know why i instinctively wander once in a while into popular science section of my local library. Because, a good popular science book is like a mind relaxation pill 
. In pure science, there is an element of certainty, orderliness and objectivity. Either something is proven or its not. Although, the brain needs to work a bit to understand the science, its not in a state of making decisions and judgments. I find that to be quite relaxing ! On the other hand, when iam dealing with topics like economics and environmental philosophy, there is a lot of speculation and subjective value calls to be made. There are a lot of normative questions to be handled .. how things should be, what is right or wrong, etc. In recent times, i had been dealing mostly with issues which require subjective opinion. Reading solid science has been a good antidote and a breath of fresh air. Perhaps, another strong reason i liked reading ‘Big Bang‘ by Simon Singh, is that the immensity and beauty of the universe has so floored me, that all our day-to-day “issues” seemed insignificant, and hence the high .
Anyway, the book ofcourse is all about the horrendous space kablooi. It was fun reading about the progression of science leading upto the eventual proving (well .. the most accepted theory currently) of Big Bang. In the beginning, ofcourse, there was the Earth at the center of the universe, and everything doing pradakshina around us. Then we realized we aren’t so special after all and its we who do the pradakshina. Maybe Sun is special ? Tough luck, there too. Suryanarayana is just another star among billions in the galaxy. We tried to comfort ourselves that the milky way, then, has surely gotta be special and the only galaxy in the universe. Oops. Those pesky nebulae turned out be full fledged galaxies in themselves ! Atleast, we hoped, there must be some stability in the universe ! Those galaxies must surely be floating around in space, forever. Then ofcourse, Hubble spoils our comfy view of the universe and says galaxies are moving away from us at thousands of kilometers a second ! The universe is expanding with every second ! And if its been expanding, the previous second or yesterday or last year, it must have been smaller than now. And if we run the clock backward enough, Bang ! Simon Singh walks us through this whole journey from flat-earth to big-bang, explaining all the science and peppering with anecdotes and behind-the-scenes events. Great job. Hats off, Simon !
Reading about the universe, as always, has been humbling too. There are so many places where our normal three-dimensional space / independent-time notion simply cannot get around some of the ideas. For example, the fact that the universe is still expanding at tremendous rate. Expanding into what ? Its not that galaxies are shooting out into existing space. How can space itself be created / stretched ? Can someone please explain this to me ! I can’t get my mind around it. Maybe it can be comprehended only as mathematical equations.
As if all this science is not exciting enough, it got me thinking about some stuff not discussed in the book per se, but kind of related — what about the elephant in the living room we have been conveniently taking for granted ? The nature of observer ! The person trying to understand the universe. The consciousness. We have been conveniently separating the two and studying the world in an observer independent fashion. I think the standard assumption is that this consciousness thingy is a secondary principle in the universe. That is, its derived from primary matter by some accidental combination of molecules. The big question — is consciousness really a secondary principle ? Or, is consciousness a “non-reductive primary” in the universe like space, time, matter. How cool would that be, if consciousness is somehow a permanent feature of the universe, instead of a random emergent property ! For which a yogi might say, “Permanent feature ?! Friend, you got it all backwards. Consciousness is the only primary feature in the universe. Everything else .. matter, time and space is secondary derivative”. But i digress .
Raj, here is a good insight into consciousness from a scientist,
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jilltaylor
Comment by Augustus — June 11, 2008 @ 1:55 am |
Nice talk. Though if a similar experience is described by a spiritual person or a yogi, it would very likely be dismissed as hogwash, showing the bias toward “science.”
Maybe the scientists should set up a double-blind study that replicates and repeats her conditions to verify her claims before accepting them.
Comment by Amit — June 11, 2008 @ 9:20 pm |
wow, Augustus, that was a rare talk man ! thanks for sharing. its not easy to find a neuro-anatomist who had a stroke induced Nirvana (as she called it) experience, and coming back to tell it.
its 11pm our time, so iam readying myself for the daily switch off, but tomorrow i’ll mention couple of points i noted from the talk.
Comment by Chaitanya Pullela — June 11, 2008 @ 11:16 pm |
I’ll just be very brief:
- She seems to have explicitly associated ego or ‘I’ consciousness to left brain activity, and some kind of non-ego wider consciousness with right brain. makes sense, since left brain is normally associated with analytical conceptual thought, and right brain with non-language perceptual activities like music. I think this article is relevant in this context: Language is the problem.
- Interesting that Dr.Taylor explicitly mentioned “Numbers” and “Language”. Again, makes sense as these are the core tools of the left brain to engage in conceptual thinking. I think relevant here is John Zerzan’s argument on symbolic thought: Running on emptiness.
- Some of the sentences from the talk “.. witnessing myself having the experience”, “.. totally disconnects you from the brain chatter”, “.. silent mind” etc are the sorts of phrases you encounter generally in a book on meditation.
So what’s the bottom line here ? In general, almost all of us today are over extended on left brain dominated conceptual thinking ? And, actively cultivating perceptual awareness is the need ? How might one do that ?
seems to me, Mindfulness is the tool to do exactly just that.
Comment by Chaitanya Pullela — June 12, 2008 @ 5:31 pm |
Augustus and Chaitanya, also read this: http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/hbreditors/2008/07/the_business_questions_surroun.html
Comment by Amit — July 23, 2008 @ 7:39 pm |
Hey Amit, interesting discussion there. you predicted this response in comment-2, din’t you ! .. of couching the argument in “science” vs “personal faith” terms.
One should be careful in understanding the terms “science” and “scientific method”. Many people, i think wrongly, equate “science” solely with “physical sciences”, where hypothesis is verified experimentally using instruments such as fMRI scanners or telescopes or microscopes. For some reason, the instrument “mind” is excluded from the list of instruments. So, all kinds of subjective experiences are dismissed as hogwash and “un-scientific”. This is a wrong understanding of science. What is more important is “scientific method”. Is a particular experiment repeatable and verifiable ? If so, it is scientifically valid result. It does not matter whether the question in question is physical sciences where data is measured using instruments, or subjective experiences where the instrument is the mind.
That said, iam not jumping to any conclusions based on Dr.Taylor’s video. To do so would be jumping to conclusions on sheer faith, without personal verification. She just gave an account of her personal experience, and couched it in left-right brain terms based on her knowledge as a neuro-scientist. Sure, as she is a scientist, i would have expected her to be more careful in presenting the issue in more precise scientific language. But, to her personally, its probably already a “scientific fact”, if she is absolutely convinced about the validity of her experience (and convinced its not some kind of delusion). For rest of us though, its just one more theoretical data point to include in our intellectual considerations, and verification pending. Its “science” or “pseudoscience” depending on who you ask.
Comment by Chaitanya Pullela — July 28, 2008 @ 10:36 am |
[...] Readers of Calvin and Hobbes of course already know, the “Horrendous Space Kablooie” is Calvin’s improved name for the Big Bang, the theory about the early moments of the [...]
Pingback by The “Horrendous Space Kablooie” Theory, Art and Science Meet « Doug’s Darkworld — January 26, 2009 @ 10:44 pm |