Exploring the Limits of Human Intuition in Science and Nature
Written on
“A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” ? Ludwig Wittgenstein
“My imagination makes me human and makes me a fool; it gives me all the world and exiles me from it.” ? Ursula K. Le Guin
The persistent fear of solipsism, the notion that nothing exists beyond our perception, can seem quite irrational. The more straightforward conclusion might be that if the physical world is indeed an illusion, it is convincing enough.
However, a subtler form of solipsism emerges, challenging whether we can ever truly comprehend the world outside of our own minds. There is a growing skepticism about our ability to intuitively understand anything beyond our personal selves, or even the minds of others.
As social mammals, our evolutionary journey has led us to focus on relationships within our communities, often sidelining the quest to understand the broader realities of existence. Historically, the world was viewed through a lens of tribalism, where the environment was considered to be alive with spirits, and shamans interacted with these entities rather than seeing nature as a mere collection of physical phenomena.
Despite the decline of such naive beliefs in the wake of civilization, the anthropocentric viewpoint remains embedded in our cultures and philosophies. The spirits of nature evolved into divine figures, and even as the scientific revolution questioned these deities, we find ourselves resorting to mind-centric metaphors in our scientific models.
Laws of Nature and Causality
Historically, many early scientists were deists, coining the term “laws of nature,” which conflated divine commandments with the necessary connections identified by empiricists like David Hume.
In reality, laws are constructs of human societies, and unless one subscribes to a theistic viewpoint, the universe lacks inherent laws. With the decline of religious explanations, nature appears increasingly anarchic.
While there is an observable order in natural events, the challenge remains: can we truly grasp this order without reverting to our ingrained intuitions? Can we expand our understanding to encompass an impersonal reality without distorting it through our personal biases?
Consider the notion of causality; we might say the wind causes ripples on water. Yet, this is a human-centric interpretation, suggesting an active force exerting power over a passive environment. Such interpretations are inherently animistic, rooted in our tribal understanding of the will’s dominance over nature.
Why do we cling to such human-centered metaphors in our scientific explanations? Are we limited by tradition, or do we face cognitive barriers?
Climbing Out of Our Minds
We possess the language to describe non-human phenomena and can model their behaviors, gaining practical knowledge for our interactions with the world. Yet, this pragmatic approach underscores our human-centered nature.
Certainly, we can reason and conceptualize beyond our immediate experiences. We recognize patterns in nature, remember them, and develop models to test and refine our hypotheses.
However, this knowledge remains secondary to our intrinsic understanding of ourselves as conscious beings. René Descartes termed this foundational knowledge because it is immediate; our mental experiences are directly accessible to us.
The real question is whether we can achieve a similar level of understanding regarding impersonal, nonliving entities. Does our immersion in our subjective experience hinder our ability to learn the true nature of the universe, compelling us to impose human-centric interpretations on the alien?
If our most reliable intuition pertains to ourselves and other conscious minds, the next layer of knowledge relates to our physical bodies and their tools. Here, the intuition suggests a hierarchy where the mind governs the body and wields its tools to realize its intentions.
This perspective extends to our scientific approach, where nature is often seen as a resource to be harnessed for human benefit. In this view, we lack a genuine understanding of entities that diverge from conscious experience.
We must confront a crucial question: Do we truly know what impersonal things are? Can we detach ourselves enough to grasp the essence of the inanimate universe without framing it as an extension of ourselves or our technological constructs?
The Resort to Arcane Maths
Scientists have approached impersonal knowledge through mathematics.
Theoretical physics is laden with abstract mathematical constructs. When asked about the essence of physical entities, a physicist may reference complex mathematical frameworks that describe invariant symmetries. However, this mathematical complexity often obscures intuitive understanding.
We might attempt to relate these intricate ideas to familiar human experiences, but such comparisons can be misleading. They do not necessarily provide insight into the true nature of the phenomena being studied.
The reliance on mathematics does simplify concepts to some degree, focusing on abstract structures rather than the entirety of what is being measured. Yet, this simplification can become a form of self-deception, leading us to believe we understand the underlying reality when we may not.
In this way, while scientists employ sophisticated mathematical models, these constructs are ultimately fictive and imaginative, akin to the narratives we weave in storytelling.
Both mathematical models and fictional narratives offer stipulative truths; we embrace them for their utility, even if they fall short of capturing the complete essence of the natural world.
Science is Counterintuitive, So We’re in the Dark
It is no surprise that scientists often rely on counterintuitive models to interpret the impersonal nature of reality. Why would social creatures like us be adept at comprehending processes that defy our social instincts or grasping the vastness of the cosmos?
However, this counterintuitiveness implies that even experts may not fully understand the nature of what they study. They can identify patterns and predict outcomes under certain conditions, yet this mastery coexists with a profound ignorance of the fundamental nature of those patterns.
The colonial mindset illustrates this well; individuals rationalized their exploitation of others by denying their humanity, reflecting a similar pattern in our relationship with the natural world.
If all intuitions stem from a subjective understanding of ourselves, we cannot escape this limitation. We remain confined within our own minds, perceiving an external world that, while verified through scientific frameworks, eludes our grasp.
What does it mean for something to be impersonal? What constitutes inanimate physicality? Can we articulate the essence of lifeless processes without invoking misguided intuitions or anthropocentric metaphors like “laws of nature”? Can we depict the wilderness without resorting to mathematical abstractions that comfort us by allowing us to suspend disbelief?
Understanding the essence of mindless physicality may remain as elusive as comprehending a distant galaxy or articulating the experience of death.
I publish my writings on Medium in both paperback and eBook formats, available on Amazon. The latest is *Questing for Epiphanies in a Haunted House, which compiles 99 diverse articles spanning 600 pages.*