Is the Self 'invalid'?

Hi Tom, The quote that supports and argues the case for studying the self as the way to true knowledge and understanding 'he who knows self etc' directly contradicts the dominant paradigm and tools used for understanding by most scientists. Most scientists argue that acquiring knowledge through introspection and self-examination is 'unreliable' and 'invalid'. The failure to accept the use of introspection and self-examination as a valuable tool to promote broader understanding of the world around us seems to explain why so many scientists remain ignorant and why the dominant paradigm of science has reverted to the explanation of the universe as random, chaotic, meaningless, accidental etc. Until you factor the self into any study of the world around us, you only get half the picture. It seems that the study of the self broadens and expands our capacity to understand and this in turn determines how we observe and understand the world around us.

pauld

If what you say is true, "most scientists" that you refer to actually contradict themselves.

One of the principal conclusions of quantum physics since 1960's (still strongly supported today) is that the quantum process and its observer are inseparable...

This means that whoever disregards the observer actually contradicts the currently established foundation of science.

Do you think it is wise to follow advice of people who contradict themselves?

Tom

The so called 'science' nowadays is driven by industrial application and its potential technological potential use. Just look at researches in the most universities, little of them really do fundamental research. As a to be physicist, I find it saddening.As my interest in material and technological science have been dwindling since the exposure of this book, I really wonder what 'career' is really worth do after my completion of my post-grad research. Do you have any advice? How do you go through this?

bom

My response was to quit the decadent environment at the University of Melbourne and go in the direction opposite to "commercialization of intellectual property" that they focus on. Someone has to continue challenging and exploring paradigms and paradoxes, especially if they lead to a planetary catastrophe...

Before I quit, I have made many "perturbation tests" of the University environment to identify the "system" and make sure that it is as decadent as I suspected it to be. Publishing The Freedom of Choice book was one of such tests.

I found beyond doubt that the university/science establishment just cannot handle individual/independent thinking. The system of thinking is "managed" and the "management" aims for more and more control, much like during the time of Great Inquisition. Anyone who dares to challenge the "system" by saying that academics should do independent (rather than sponsored) thinking and research is ridiculed, punished and expelled.

As you know, I consider such an attitude as a major invasion into The Freedom of Thought and a violent act against The Purpose of the Universe. That is why I am at Mt Best, preparing to survive the initial cataclysms (volcanic activity, earthquakes, tidal waves and violent weather, all caused by polluted atmosphere and overheating of the planetary interior) - just to be able to tell the story to other survivors.

As you see - I have chosen to reject a concept of a "career". However, I cannot and will not make any choice for you. Use your intelligence, consider all imaginable options and make your OWN choice. The easiest choice, of course, is to do nothing...

If you doubt whether one individual can change the entire world - consider that this is the ONLY thing that ever did...

Tom

Tom, I am drawn to respond to your comments about the self I made earlier. The point I was making in my comments was that while an immense amount of time has been dedicated to exploring the material world around us and developing and using the best scientific methods to do so, very little time has been dedicated by the same scientific community to developing a similar set of useful methods for studying the self.

Granted that through quantum physics, recognition has now been given to the self as an observer and recognition has also been given to the interdependence between the observer and what is being observed, yet little effort seems to be given to the formulation of a rigorous methodology useful in the scientific investigation of the observer or self.

Scientists like yourself have a lot to offer because too much of the study of the self can be lost in false doctrines tied to mysticism and religion and not reality.

Science has a lot to offer in terms of methodology, rigour etc and yet quantum physics is being misused by a lot of new age and spiritual leaders to support their bullcrap. Quantum physics has been used to "substantiate" lies and misinformation in situations where application of rigorous research methods of experimental psychology etc. would reveal the false claims made by so called spiritual entrepeneurs (who make large amounts of money on people's stupidity by selling their products/wisdom/services etc.)

pauld

The greatest achievement of the quantum physics is that in studying the most fundamental processes that we can presently imagine it concluded that the observer cannot be eliminated from consideration, simply because the observer seems an integral part of any fundamental process.

Unfortunately, what followed was development of the "uncertainty principle" rather than study of the observer (physics of the information exchange in consciousness). My views on the uncertainty principle are similar to those expressed by Einstein: "God doesn't play dice". I typically add that "God is not an idiot", just in case my audience cannot comprehend the principle of dice.

Einstein did not succeed in developing any plausible alternative to the "uncertainty principle" and seemingly useful statistics associated with it. My attempt to introduce such an alternative is presented in this article. If I am correct, even partially, the idea presented in this article can be a basis of the entirely new civilization after this one destroys itself... Sometimes I catch myself thinking that it would be great...

Tom

What if people won't see the connection between 'civilized' human activity and those cataclysms? What makes you so sure, that 'afterwards' they are going to comprehend?

Paul

On what basis have you concluded that I am "so sure"?

I try to maximize my chances of survival just to be able to tell the story to those survivors who will choose to seek an explanation.

As you know, our civilization is not the first one on Earth that has been wiped out due to their lack of Understanding of Nature. How and WHY these civilizations disappeared is a "mystery". No one knows.

Perhaps a sequence of doomed civilizations continued because those who could explain and predict the dangers either did not exist or did not make sufficient effort to survive.

Can surviviors from our society break the pattern of ignorance?

Tom