苹果手机维修拆卸视频:Shifting Assumptions in Science

{Sahtouris] Hello, I'm Dr. Elisabet Sahtouris, and we're here atbeautiful Lake Toya in Hokkaido for a symposium on the Foundations ofScience. We're looking into the basic belief assumptions that underlieWestern Science, in order to see how the paradigm shift is occurring inscience nowadays, with some people still in academia doing moretraditional science, and many of us who have left academia and areoutside science developing new kinds of assumptions in order to do newtheories and new research.

** Our foundational scientific assumptions

[Sahtouris] We're going to get to how to build a new science, buttoday we're on our personal assumptions, OK. It's very important for usto lay that groundwork and then figure out how to make this into acredible science.

[Genku Kimura] Even when people ask some questions, hiddenassumptions are already implied. So questions are determined by theassumptions and answers that come out also are determined byassumptions. So, assumption really gives a whole context. So it is very,very, very important that we become cognisant and aware of our hiddenassumptions. We hold many, many, many assumptions unknowingly,unconsciously. So, when we talk about science or anything, we don’t talkabout nothing, we talk about something. So you already have anassumption that, you know, the topics on which you are talking exist.

[Josephson] You could say one is deciding something is real not onlyin the basis of something fairly direct or even a measurement, buttheoretical models come in as well because science is trying to unify,it’s trying to produce, trying to find out models that have maximumexplanatory power.

[Genku Kimura] What do I consider to be real? You know, James Jeansdefined science as an attempt at setting order, a factual experience,the question is what kind of experience are we actually setting inorder, but it comes across to my own assumption that whatever shows upin the field of my experience, I consider to exist. Therefore, thisshows up in the field of my experience, therefore, this experience, thisexists. Also when I had this -- everybody has these kind of a cosmicspiritual experience that are not sensorily accessible, somehowspiritually accessible, that’s also a part of my field of experience,they also exist. And so that is my fundamental premise or assumptionregarding reality, that it shows in my experience and experience has awide range, from sensory all the way to spiritual or you can callmystical.

[Samanta-Laughton]: I’m just making the observation, having heard afew of the comments, that there's the assumption [either] that realityis what we perceive to our consciousness, or [that] reality isconsciousness itself, because some people are talking about, nothing canexist unless it's conceived of or imagined ...

[Sahtouris]: Both

[Samanta-Laughton]: Both. Yes, that’s what I’m getting. I’m gettingboth ... these two different things are emerging are two complementaryor two the same ...

[Sahtouris]: I think it’s complementary, yes.

[Samanta-Laughton]: Well, it is interesting because -— as they said,it's like I’ve sort of experienced reality more as, it’s consciousnessthat creates reality.

** Consciousness and Emotions

[Bakar] The mainstream assumption is precisely that, that everythingis explainable within physical reality. So if we take consciousnessthen, based on that assumption, consciousness has to be explained as akind of product of physical processes [but] we can talk about cosmicconsciousness as a whole ... Now we didn’t talk about the multipleconsciousnesses that constitute the entire cosmic consciousness and evenbeyond, the meta-cosmic consciousness. And we need to go to biology--Imean, from cosmology, we need to go to the particular domain which is inbiology in order to understand life, what life is and whatconsciousness is, we have to now define the different attributes thatcategorise each of these different aspects of consciousness, ordifferent levels of consciousness. And I just want to raise that,because I think so far we have been talking about it in a rather generalway.

[Texier]: I think one of the failures of science unto the moment isthat they put emotions outside. And if we are thinking in consciousnessscience like Yasu was telling yesterday, we have to include love. That'svery difficult for science, for academics but I think that it's an,important ingredient to the new science, including emotions. Now, we canwork emotion beside science because we have the tools.

** Qualitative and Quantitative Science

[Genku Kimura] So, there is an assumption in science, you know, thatwhat is not quantified does not exist, maybe. And you know, in our ownway of thinking, maybe, we can expand that definition into somethingmore than just quantifiability or communicability, so that’s my thought.

[Tiller] So, quantitative science is higher on the hierarchy thanthe whole range of science. Quantitative is better than—it’s morediscriminating than qualitative. And that is a very importantdifferentiation and that's one of the reasons that western science hasbeen so powerful-- it's because it has been quantitative which means itlead to engineering, which means it needs to the manufacture of thingsreliably reproducible, etc. So I am glad you brought that point up—it isvery important.

[Josephson] That makes it limited, as well.

[Tiller] Oh of course it does, absolutely.

[Texier] I agree with you, because-—I intend to say that I think theproblem is not science, it's not technology. It's the use and what wepropose to do with this because I think that for years, science andrationalism become the king and conduce the humanity, they put out thequality, okay? And I think that they have to be both.

[Samanta-Laughton] So I agree with the quantitative versusqualitative. Well, it's both and they're both beautifully complementaryand whether things are processes or things it's useful to think of bothas ??? said, and Mr. Shoji said also, it depends on the level to whichyou are looking at things.

[Sahtouris] You can't do the holistic thinking when you have toabstract only what you currently can measure in something and I dorecognise that you want to be able to handle more and more variables inyour quantifiability but there is a question to me whether the goalshould be to only move it all into quantification or whether we need theholistic quality picture of things and I think we will always need itand that it has to be seen as not a superiority of one over the other,not a goal of going entirely into the right or the left into quantifyingor qualitative but to truly be aware that any new science must havethis complementarity and that means the respect of the quantifiers forthe qualifiers, right? This is absolutely critical because if they keepthinking that theirs is a superior one, eventually all that fuzzy stuffwill come into our domain, it's not going to work right.

** The principle of group emergence

[Ward (moderator)] What I understand through our conversation--I hadforgotten why--is that is why listening to others, why everyone’s here,is to go beyond the individuality of our knowing and in coherence toallow something greater than that to emerge. And so, a significant partof that is the connectedness.

[Samanta-Laughton] When a group mind comes together, what happens isinformation comes through from the universe that isn’t within anyindividual here. It’s when the group comes together that magicalemergence comes and we create something together that is bigger as agroup than any of our individuals. That’s what I was talking about. notan explosion of ...

[Tiller] Can I add to that, I meant it in the following way, becauseI usually have this kind of thing happen often with my consulting work.You could tune to the individual you’re consulting with, to the placewhere you’re so paying attention, but you’re in tune, and the bandwidthsof your consciousness combine, and in the larger bandwidth informationcan flow in, you couldn't have imagined that, I think that’s what you’retalking about.

[Samanta-Laughton] That's what I'm saying ...

** Developing intuition and imagination in science

[Tiller] ... it is that we should teach people how to develop theirintuition because in these multi-variable problems, you really need touse this skill. It's a natural human skill.

[Sahtouris]: Okay, and that's your insight.

[Samanta-Laughton] I just really, really want to echo what Elisabetwas saying and what Bill is agreeing with as well and from my ownexperience, when I developed as a mystic following my kind of Kundalilniexperience over a number of years, and it also helped that myscientific life, it all came together as a oneness and some of you haveread the book Punk Science so you know about my experience when I wasactually in nature and I had—I was actually thrown into the universeconsciousness itself and the universe consciousness came to me as arevelation but not as someone of an indigenous culture might haveexperienced it. For me, it was particles, it was Hawking radiation, itwas an understanding that melted together completely my mystical and myacademic nature as one, there was no separation.

[Josephson] Well, I think it's all very well to say science clearlyincludes intuition but you still have to make a big cultural changebefore anything will happen and before it becomes part of people'straining I guess. So it's just—it's difficult to see a whole project,but we might think about how one might go about it, what kind of coursesthere might be, and clarify what the role of intuition is and whathappens if you ...

[Shoji] the problems and challenges that we face in society are dueto the fact that we lack imagination and creativity. People tend tomemorise what is learned from others, and therefore if you try to reallyfind out a better answer, you need to do more than just memorising. Inother words, each one of us has to think in our own way. Otherwise, theproblems and the challenges would still remain in society. That's what Ifeel.

** Current assumptions underlying science

[Josephson]: I just want to make a comment which really reflect to abig subject. There's been comment about the unconscious assumptions ofscience and that people don’t know the assumptions that there's workingon, but I think that’s not the case they have been spelt out, thatscience is based on experiment and public observation and so on. So,that is not really the issue, the deeper assumption is that is the onlyvalid approach to knowledge.

[Genku Kimura] Assumptions become dogmatic assumptions, but there is a distinction.

[Josephson]: Surely all dogmas are assumption, but not all assumptions are dogmas.

[Sahtouris] Exactly.

[Genku Kimura] And there are assumptions that gave rise to those dogmas.

[Elisabet]: Yes. So give us an example.

[Yasuhiko Genku Kimura]: One of the fundamental assumptions thatscience has is this 'reality is physical reality' that Manjir talkedabout, that is more like a fundamental philosophical assumption.

[Sahtouris]: That’s what I call the non-living universe.

[Genku Kimura]: Yes, the non-living universe.

[Sahtouris]: I am fascinated by the fact that the concept ofnon-life doesn’t seem to exist in any other human cultures exceptpossibly was invented by the ancient Greeks when they invented thegeometry of the spheres and so forth. But it's so deep an assumptionthat you’re considered virtually crazy if you suggest that it's not anon-living universe.

[Shoji] Some say, the earth is not living. Such people may beactually positioned in a non-living domain. In other words, if you thinkthe earth is living, then you would have contact with the earth as aninteraction between the other living things. If you treat the earth assomething not living then that would already put yourself in aninorganic domain. So the earth could be considered as living ornon-living depending on the way people approach it. It's completelydifferent from the scientist's point of view.

[Genku Kimura]: Shoji says very profound things, matter of factly.When he said that when somebody sees something non-living, there must bea something within human heart that is there, that is a very profoundstatement. So changing the assumption from non-living universe to livinguniverse has a tremendous, tremendous, tremendous significance and I’msure we all know this but it’s really, really important and so when Icame across a lot of cancer patients because of my past association withthem. When you go to the doctors, they treat the body, they treatpeople like, just machine. So once we shift our thinking into seeingeverything as alive, that will have a tremendous impact, and I just wantto emphasize. And reverse of what he said is true, so if you are dead,you see something to be dead, but once you begin to see things alive,then the deadness within them is going to be divine.

** Towards new assumptions and a new view of science

[Samanta-Laughton]: Yes. Okay completely change in direction. Newassumptions, new assumption is that the characteristics that make anorganism what it is, is not reliant on the DNA sequence of genes, andthat’s after the Human Genome Project.

[Genku Kimura]: Can you change your sentence from a negative statement to a positive statement?

[Bakar]: You are actually responding to a certain assumption incurrent biology. So what is that assumption that you are questioning?

[Samanta-Laughton]: The original assumption? Yes you’reright--there is something underlying that. The original assumption isthat DNA is primary and responsible for all the characteristics as theorganism. So if we change it around, we have to say that the newassumption is that there is something other than DNA that is responsiblefor the characteristics of the organism.

[Sahtouris]: The evolution of species is an intelligent learningprocess in nature. That’s an assumption I make based on my perception ofwhat happens--and it’s very different from Darwin.

[Ward]: There doesn’t seem to be any edginess about that one.

[Genku Kimura]: I have a question. So if you make that assumption inplace of the Darwinian assumption, what are the possibilities that comeout of this assumption which was not available from the Darwinianassumption?

[Elisabet Sahtouris]: Well there is already evidence for things thathave been built on that assumptions. For instance, Barbara McClintock’swork showed that DNA can intelligently rearrange itself under stressand so did Esher Ben-Jacob's work in Israel. So there are quite a fewexperiments showing that DNA literally rearranges itself to meet aparticular stress problem.

[Samanta-Laughton]: And John Cairns as well.

[Sahtouris]: Yes Cairns has done it. And then there’s also theevidence that type I and type III ecosystems have the first one largelycompetitive species and the second largely cooperative species and Iposit the theory that there’s a learning process that shows that feedingyour enemies is more energy efficient than killing them and this wouldbe a very important implication for society if this were understood byall of us.

[Genku Kimura]: So the possibility that comes up from thatassumption is tremendous. And I think when we choose assumptions thatare wonderful in a criteria to chose because some assumptions kind ofclose possibilities whereas this assumption actually opens up a newpossibility. One more question. So are you [Josephson] talking about acomplementarity as a new emerging principle in science or…

[Josephson]: Well as an old principle. There's more interesting things like that now.

[Genku Kimura]: Yes. And I know in Chinese anyway—so is it likeemerging as a new assumption -- complementary [being] essential for theprocess or the phenomena in the universe?

[Josephson]: No, I meant old in conventional terms. Yes when quantummechanics came out it was realised as Elisabet said [something can be]sometimes it is a wave, sometimes it is a particle depending on how youlook at it. There is a lecture of mine you can see on the internet onhow -- Bohr argued life might have to be viewed differently which isvery relevant to our present discussion. He was bludgeoned into givingup the idea. I argued that it was a perfectly valid idea and is animportant one.

[Sahtouris]: What was the perfectly valid idea that Bohr got talked out of?

[Josephson]: Complementarity of physics and biology, that biologymight not be explicable according to ordinary quantum mechanics.

[Tiller} Let me add that basically, people have been arguing aboutthat ever since the beginnings of quantum mechanics and it is a very,very confused subject. If you look at the writings it just goes downthe history, and it's basically stated in a way that's very very complexbecause there are many features in it that are not simply a part ofcomplementarity in nature. Would you agree, Brian?

[Josephson]: Yes, I think the fact that biosystems are complex is important as well.

[Bakar]: I think the relationship between biology and physics is avery important issue. It is important now, and it is going to be moreimportant in our new, global science. Of course, we are looking for amore authentic relationship between biology and physics. We go for anew biology, new physics, so our new vision will bring about ... perhapsthe relationship between the two will become closer.

[Samanta-Laughton]: For me, it's beautiful what's happening at themoment with these so-called theories of everything -- they are allshowing similar patterns and I think that's a beautiful point. At thispoint in humanity everyone is seeing a new aspect of consciousness, anew aspect of the universe, but they're seeing it through their ownlens, so if we can put our egos aside and actually say that we all have apart of the picture -- you know, that's the way to move forward.

** Global sciencing

[Sahtouris] When I use 'global', the way I meant it was 'globalisng'Western science, and so it's taught in Kuala Lumpur, in China and allover the place, it has been adopted lock, stock and barrel, and I wantto make the distinction between a globally adopted Western science and atruly Global Science. I think it's important that we recognise thatwe're talking about two different things, the new science that we wantto take to the world, the consciousness-inclusive, this new science, andthe concept of a global science where any culture can set basic beliefson which to build hypotheses and be counted as science. If they doproper methodology and definitions, and acknowledgment of axioms, theidea of opening it up, that there's not one true science, or the 'onetrue science' that actually says it's the only science at present, andwe need to open that space so that the new science can be included inscience without invalidating Western science. And, also open it toancient sciences, to the way young people will develop science, andthat's what I mean by Global Science.

[Ward]: And can I get clear, is that the primary aim of thissymposium, to promote the idea of this all-inclusive science, called atthe moment global science?

[Sahtouris]: The primary goal is, to reassess the foundations ofWestern science so that we can see what it means to build a science, toflesh out what we mean by our new science, and to create a container forother people to do similar things in the world under the rubric of aglobal science.

[Genku Kimura]: A common feature that I can detect among all thosesciences is that it is an interpretive theory in the sense that DavidBohm defined, interpretive theory that has inner coherence. Andcoherence does not mean logical in the sense of -- you know --Aristotelian logic as such; there can be many different forms of logicor coherence -- somehow, a theory has inner coherence.

[Tiller]: You mean an inner self-consistency?

[Genku Kimura]: Self-consistency. Yes, or inner integrity. So onecommon feature, whether it is Western science, or Vedic science, orwhatever the science we now term science, it is a formal theory, ortheory in the sense of the perspective from which to see, and it is aninterpretive theory, of phenomena, that has inner self-consistency.

[Sahtouris]: Well by Western science's own definition of science Ithink there are other sciences and they don't, by it's own definition.


[Genku Kimura]:I understand. I mean -- science needs knowledge.

[Sahtouris]: Well, it means ordering your knowledge in a particularway, making explicit your foundations, creating theories, hypotheses,doing research, getting answers, interpreting them, repeating them, youknow, all of these things.

[Bakar]: If we go along with this definition of global science, aspresented by Elisabet, then that [deals with] the concern that you haveraised, precisely because the global science here includes the ancientsciences and other traditional sciences, and I, in particular, wouldlike to refer to a living culture, one living culture which is my ownliving culture-- tradition, Islam, in which precisely. I mean, we usethe word science to refer to a systematically organised body ofknowledge with well-defined subject matter, which of course any sciencemust have, its own assumptions, its own methodological instance ofmethodology, and goals that it seeks to achieve, all those define whatscience is. In the history of Western science, we have that narrowdefinition, I think that started with the British philosopher, WilliamWhewell, when he began to define science in terms of method. In otherwords, there’s only one method by which you should define science. Iftruths and realities cannot be ascertained or cannot be verifiedaccording to that method, then it doesn’t qualify to be science. That’swhy there was once a point in the history of modern Western thought whenpsychology was considered as a pseudoscience, not as a real science.So, in other words we have different historical experience, but I thinkthe beautiful thing in Elisabet’s definition is that by including theother non-Western sciences whether ancient that have died out but otherswere still very much alive until today ...

[Texier]: I don't know when, exactly, but I think in the history ofthe Western science when it becomes a colonialist, and now we are inpost colonialist times, of humanity. So the word that comes to me isdialogue, which is what we need, this dialogue, reciprocally with theorder science.

[Bakar]: What I'm saying is based on fact. What are the facts? Factsare ... we know they exist. There are many traditions, many cultures,which have different visions of reality, not looking at it as a machinebut as something else ... with practical implications. This is a veryimportant thing, why we insist on this new global science, because thekind of vision of reality that we have will influence the kind ofculture that we have. So many cultures are now starting to decaybecause they are forced to live with just the vision of modern science.

[Texier]: ... science has a strategic nature because it provides uswith models and a presentation of reality that guides our perception andour way of doing things in, and about, the reality. So in postcolonialtimes such as the present of humanity [science] must be inclusive andcover the concordance of multiple skills and all cultural responses forthe regulation of individual and social life.

[Sahtouris]: I love that finish to the four because it is makingscience very human, and it's saying that our models determine how peoplethink, in different cultures around the world and determines theirbehaviour. It creates their reality because science is telling theircreation story and our relationship to each other and to the universe,and you've included all of nature, so it's a wonderful finish to it.

[end of main symposium; for the participants' summary statements please refer to the video, starting at 35:56]