“The only reality is mind and observations but observations are not of things. To see the Universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things. The Universe is immaterial, mental and spiritual. Live and enjoy!” — Richard Conn Henry
While synthetizing science and metaphysics, evolutionary cybernetics is a new field of study that predicts a variety of aspects of our civilizational development, notably a phase transition of uploaded cyberhumanity by becoming one Global Mind. In my online interactions, I’m oftentimes confronted with die-hard materialists or otherwise ardent empiricists who demand “hard evidence” for my claims as an evolutionary cyberneticist, so here’s a brief discourse on intellectual progress of our species.
From quantum gravity to dark matter, string theory to parallel universes, many scientific theories and hypotheses lack hard evidence. “Fashion” in science, i.e., a scientific narrative in vogue, favors a certain paradigm which later unavoidably is swept under the rug. Current science can only explain a meager 4% of the visible universe, the rest is conveniently labeled the “Dark Universe” — dark matter and dark energy. All of it is seemingly conjectural, it’s all an elaborate abstraction in the minds of an intelligent species indigenous to this planet. In fact, visible reality is just a tiny patch of metaphysical reality, a topic I’d rather save for another day.
As John Locke once said: “New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.” If you ask me, ‘scientism’, obsessive preoccupation with the scientific method, the worldview that empirical science represents the only authority, is but inverse religion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not against science, but I’m adamantly against scientism. I love science, but I feel sorry for its dogmatic fanatics.
Science starts with philosophy and ends with philosophy. By that I mean, scientists start with hypotheses and then try to prove them empirically or theoretically. When done so, the final results are still open to [philosophical] interpretations. Philosopher Nietzsche points out that there are no facts, only interpretations, and statistician George Box echoes his words by saying: “All models are wrong, but some are useful.” In short, science needs philosophy just as philosophy needs science. There’s no separation: It is the same continuum of intellectual endeavor.
‘Pseudoscience’ is an overused term by scientists and non-scientists alike usually in regards to their opposition, or some weakly understood concept, or outside institutionalized science. While using this term, one assumes that science with its methodology is absolute truth — it is not. Science may offer certain perspectives based on its commonly accepted scientific method but those perspectives on reality are not exclusive or the only valid ones. It is a narrow window to look at the world through a highly structured and paradigmatic way. Our theoretical and experimental models are, as history shows, provisional at best and over time are swept away by the next paradigmatic shift.
The most striking example of pseudoscience could be materialism itself as it is not only an “expiring” philosophical paradigm, but for a lack of a better word, “pseudo-knowledge,” notably in physics where mind-independent objective reality and ‘local realism’ among other materialist assumptions have been routinely falsified, dismissed and debunked since the 1920s.
Our inability to measure something or deliver a mathematized proof does not negate its existence. On the other hand, we can say with great certainty that materialism (recently rebranded as ‘physicalism’) is a “Flatlander philosophy.”
There’s no clear dividing line between science and metaphysics. With scientific method we only uncover/write the rules of the game, but knowing the rules of the game is not the same as playing the game — to play the game you are to co-author reality and make choices as you move along through life. Reality is just too huge for a small human science box to fit in. Besides, there’s no such thing as pure science. On-demand scientific research is funded by special interest groups, be it economic, cultural, or political, that promote and sell to us their products and ideology.
Pseudo-intellectuals, including many mediocre scientists, stubbornly remain in the Flatland: They claim that Nature is deterministic, yet they deny teleological evolution; they demand mathematized proofs, yet they hastily dismiss simulation theory. This mindset “science is closer to the ultimate truth than spirituality” is simply ridiculous, if not plainly wrong. Even Einstein used to say: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” Our human rationality, elevated “monkeydom,” trying to make sense of the world by transcribing one string of 0s and 1s into another and thinking that it’s universal, is nothing less than hubristic, if not imbecilic on another level. Our minds create reality via the act of conscious observation — it is a “self-simulated” reality — and our “science-based” mental models then become, past a certain tipping point of support, a prevailing scientific narrative.
We should be humbled when confronted with the ultimate truth. As I write elsewhere, consciousness is fundamental, pre-exists our universe and manifests in everything we think of as real. This claim can be validated, at least in part, by the multiverse ontology most physicists and philosophers now adhere to, and quantum theory lends a hefty support to that. This claim is also validated by what I call ‘40 M-Observables’. These observed phenomena and resulting deductions are neatly categorized and further substantiated in my recent book The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind’s Evolution.
When enough anomalies accumulate over time, paradigms change. We may be close to that inflection point right now. At this juncture of technoscientific progress, the boldest of us may admit that we’re overdue for the next post-materialist paradigm: Conventional scientific method is already bankrupt and needs to be supplanted by AI-powered quantum neo-empiricism, computational thinking and the cybernetic approach to reality.
P.S. Adapted from my recent book The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind’s Evolution available now as eBook, paperback, hardcover, audiobook on Amazon, Audible, from Barnes & Noble, and directly from the publisher — EcstadelicNET webstore.
Tags: evolutionary cybernetics, phenomenal mind, planetary superorganism, Global Brain, global neural network, multividuals, cyberhumans, Gaian Mind, metaphysics, civilizational development, phase transition, uploaded cyberhumanity, gravity, dark matter, String theory, parallel universes, dark energy, visible reality, metaphysical reality, John Locke, scientism, scientific method, empirical science, philosophy, Nietzsche, George Box, pseudoscience, materialism, local realism, flatlander philosophy, teleological evolution, simulation theory, simulated reality, self-simulated reality, rationality, multiverse ontology, quantum theory, m-observables, observed phenomena, quantum neo-empiricism, computational thinking, cybernetic approach
About the Author:
Alex Vikoulov is a Russian-American futurist, evolutionary cyberneticist, philosopher of mind, essayist, media commentator, painter, author of “The Syntellect Hypothesis: Five Paradigms of the Mind’s Evolution,” “The Origins of Us: Evolutionary Emergence and The Omega Point Cosmology,” “The Physics of Time: D-Theory of Time & Temporal Mechanics,” “The Intelligence Supernova: Essays on Cybernetic Transhumanism, The Simulation Singularity & The Syntellect Emergence,” “Theology of Digital Physics: Phenomenal Consciousness, The Cosmic Self & The Pantheistic Interpretation of Our Holographic Reality,” “NOOGENESIS: Computational Biology,” “TECHNOCULTURE: The Rise of Man,” “The Cybernetic Singularity: The Syntellect Emergence.” Self-described digital theologian, neo-transcendentalist, transhumanist singularitarian. Lives in Burlingame, California (San Francisco Bay Area). More Bio…
Author Website: www.alexvikoulov.com
* Image Credit: Shutterstock