Nikola Tesla

by

The Limits of Human Science

97294_nikola_tesla_with_his_equipment_edit_0

In an attempt to carry on a dialogue with the scientific empiricists among us, I would humbly like to submit a few thoughts and arguments about what I perceive to be the limitations of science and the scientific method. This is not necessarily intended to be an argument in favor of religion or mysticism – only an attempt to question the degree to which some of us, paradoxically, put our absolute faith in scientific knowledge, to the exclusion of anything else. Nor is this intended to question the validity of the scientific method – it’s really about questioning some of the basic assumptions we make about science.

One of the basic steps in the scientific method is “observation”. Empirical science is entirely predicated on observation, as it is the first step in the process, followed by the steps of “analysis” and “inference”. Newton, for example, developed his laws of motion when he observed an apple falling from a tree, as the legend goes, which is an anecdotal way of pointing out that, essentially, Newton’s laws of motion reflect his rational explanation, in the language of Mathematics, of the behavior of physical objects in the observed universe – the key point being that it is a rationalization (i.e. mathematical explanation) of observations.

Einstein added a unique twist to the scientific method in that he often worked from what he called “thought experiments”. Einstein was also a major proponent of the role of the imagination in science, which was a significant departure from the scientific method preceding him – much more driven by empiricism, i.e. experiment and observation. The scientific method, as it stands today appears to follow an iterative paradigm in which we have such steps as “Think of Interesting Questions” and “Formulate Hypotheses”, etc. However, it still appears to be fundamentally predicated on the apparently all-important step of “Making Observations”.

Now here’s the thing about making observations – they are essentially subjective. Every scientific observation ever made on record has been made by a human being with five senses and with a uniquely human point of view. It might be argued that scientific instruments provide us with a more objective means of observing reality, but let’s keep in mind that every scientific instrument ever built was designed and built by human beings with five senses (or by machines designed and built by similar human beings) and intended to be read by other human beings with five senses. Thus, in design, architecture and interface, every scientific instrument ever built essentially serves and reinforces the human five-sensory perception of reality. Einstein’s approach of deploying the creative imagination lends his theoretical work a uniquely original, out-of-the-box perspective. Nevertheless, in order to be accepted as mainstream science, Einstein’s theories had to be subjected to mathematical elaboration and empirical validation (by means of scientific experiments and instruments designed by human beings with a five-sensory perspective on reality).

Following Einstein’s example, if we allow our imagination to take flight, at this stage, and conduct a small thought experiment … let’s imagine that somewhere in our vast universe there is an intelligent alien life form of some sort – a silicon-based life-form, for argument’s sake, with eleven senses, three hearts and five brains operating in parallel, like nodes in a computer server cluster. In other words, a life form as far removed from our own as we can imagine. Let’s imagine that they eat raw sand and other silicates for breakfast and that they can see a different range of electromagnetic frequencies than we human beings can (e.g. radio frequencies, UV frequencies, etc.) and hear a different range of audio frequencies than we can, much like bats, for example. Let’s even imagine that their sense of touch is not “in tune” with ours, so that they might be able to walk through walls or on water. Would the perception and experience of reality of such an alien being be remotely similar to our own? Of course not. Therefore, would their observation of nature be remotely in sync with our own? Obviously not.

If, therefore, this alien being had a profoundly different observational experience of reality than our own, and if, as we understand, observation is the integral step in the scientific method, does it not follow that any science developed by this alien intelligence would have absolutely no correlation or similarity with our own concept of science? Is it not reasonable to suppose that this alien science would be fundamentally different from what we must now term “human science” – different in ways that we cannot possibly imagine? Indeed, it may be the case that not only will an alien intelligence arrive at different physical principles than our own, based on their very different observation of reality, but, in my opinion, we cannot even be sure that the mathematical systems they develop will have any correlation with our own. We would tend to suppose that 2+2=4 is a universal fact, but can we be sure of that? Unless we happen to encounter an alien intelligence that corroborates that as a universal fact, we cannot be absolutely certain – it remains an assumption.

If we then conclude that our present understanding of “human science” is limited by our five-sensory experience of reality, and if, one day, we happened to develop a sixth sense, out of the blue, is it not possible that our new perspective of reality, afforded to us now by our six senses, might render all of existing human science as simplistic or incomplete or even, possibly, deeply flawed in some way that we now cannot fathom in our five-sensory state? In which case, how can we have any clue that what we now consider to be indisputable fact is not utterly absurd from a more enlightened point of view, even as the Renaissance theory of the bodily humors or the Medieval ideas about medicinal blood-letting are from our post-modern point of view?

Thus, if we consider any of the so-called “conspiracy theories” or “mystical ideas” out there, such as Deepak Chopra’s ideas about alternative healing or David Icke’s theory that the moon might be an artificial satellite or Masaru Emoto’s ideas on the effect of human consciousness on the crystalline structure of water – are we justified in claiming that such ideas contradict modern science? Isn’t it more accurate to state that such ideas contradict human science as we currently understand it – in its current stage of development? Does that invalidate these alternative ideas or render them inaccurate? Surely not! Unless and until we can find solid evidence definitively to demonstrate the fallacy of such ideas, we must at least concede that they are possible, however improbable we may consider them to be. And even if we do find the evidence to refute any of these ideas, how can we be certain that we are not misreading or misinterpreting the evidence or the idea?

Given all of these considerations, is it reasonable for some of us to assert that our current understanding of modern science gives us the right and ability to ridicule any ideas that may seem to be absurd from the modern scientific perspective? Or should we not, at least, try to be more open-minded and accepting of apparently unconventional ideas, considering that some of them may have the potential to be enormously beneficial to humankind?

by

David Icke and the Limits of Human Perception 

banksy-canvas-prints-people-with-television-heads-73cm-by-50cm-1r177mRecently, I have been delving into the ideas of the reputed conspiracy theorist turned metaphysical philosopher, David Icke. I now own several of his books and have watched and listened to hours of video and audio footage of his talks and interviews, so I think I have some basic understanding of some of his more esoteric and mind-bending ideas.

One of his ideas that really speaks to me is what he says about the very nature of human perception of the universe. Complementing the ideas of such brilliant minds as Tesla and Einstein, Icke delineates his concept of the universe as a giant field of wave-form energy that we human beings inhabit as conscious, sentient entities. We interpret this field energy through our five senses and brain to construct the experience of living in a universe of three-dimensional space and time – physical reality, as it were. But this construct really only exists in our minds – it represents how we human individuals interpret the field of wave-form energy in which we are immersed. In its raw form, the universe is nothing like how we perceive it. Icke likens our perception of the universe to the video programming one might watch on a television screen. The TV interprets the electromagnetic waves that it intercepts via its antenna or cable to construct a recognizable experience of the world. However, in its raw form, the TV signal is simply electromagnetic wave energy.

The really fascinating insight that David Icke provides is that the human sensory apparatus is tuned to an extremely limited bandwidth of frequencies. We can perceive visible light and infra-red (heat) radiation through our senses of sight and touch, we can hear a limited range of sounds through our sense of hearing, we can detect a limited range of odors through our olfactory system, and so forth. But the senses we are capable of constitute an extremely limited range – other members of the animal kingdom, in fact, have their senses tuned to different ranges, so that cats can see in the dark, dogs have highly sensitive senses of smell and hearing, and bats have a highly developed sense of hearing that it uses as a form of acoustic radar to navigate through a world in which it is, essentially blind. Furthermore, while our senses are bombarded with signals at all times, our brain filters these signals so that only a fraction of what our senses perceive actually reaches our awareness.

The bottom line is that what we human beings know and experience as reality is only a tiny fraction of what is really around us – our interpretation of the vast field of wave-form energy that surrounds us is extremely limited. There is much that we cannot perceive simply because of the limitations of our senses and the capacities of our brains to process the information our senses receive. Even with the benefit of peripheral devices and technology, our perception of reality can only be slightly extended.

And this brings David Icke to the startling hypothesis that, potentially, explains much of what we conceive – and dismiss – as the workings of the supernatural. If our perceptions are so limited, how can we reasonably infer that what we see or hear or otherwise sense is all there is to the universe around us? If we are tuned to a specific channel on our TV sets, then we are limited to viewing only the specific programming to which we have access. But that doesn’t mean that all of the other channels don’t exist, simply because we are tuned to one specific channel. They do exist, and if we flipped the channel we would be able to access that programming.

But what if we lived in a backward totalitarian state, where the only programming we could receive on our cheap black-and-white TV sets was the government channel of 24/7 state propaganda? Because we would not have the capacity to flip the channel on our cheap one-channel TV sets, we would never be aware that any of the other channels or programming even existed. We would not be aware that there was such a thing as color TV or multiple TV channels!

Becoming aware of color television and multiple channels of TV programming and, in fact, the ability to flip channels on a whim, would be something like experiencing an expansion of personal consciousness. One becomes aware of other dimensions of reality, beyond what one had previously been exposed to in one’s very limited sphere of awareness.

That, in effect, is the profound metaphor that David Icke uses to explain his understanding of what we deem to be the “supernatural” – in other words, phenomena that we dismiss as incredible simply becauase they occur beyond our capacity to perceive them! When you really think about it, it seems perfectly logical, but the implications of this feat of reasoning are profound – and, indeed, terrifying! What, in fact, lurks out there in the universe, behind our very shoulders, perhaps – beyond the reaches of our ability to perceive it? David Icke makes some terrifying suggestions – he claims the existence of parasitic reptilian creatures who feed on human life-force energy. Apparently far-fetched, but is it really?

Having previously written about human perception on my blog, this subject is particularly interesting to me and worth thinking and reading about in greater depth!