Science started with the uncensored motive to understand, and they called it magic.
What would a scientific metaphysics look like? Any ideas?
Simply testing the metaphysical theories to see if they are reproducible. If they are, then coming up with hypothesis as to why they are. See if they recur reliably to actually have predictive value, even if they don’t seem to be logical.
You change the theory to match the data, never the data to match the theory. That is the ideal behind it.
Is the TV show character ‘Dr. House’ a modern day wizard? He would be, yes. He is holistic. Practicing an unorthodox style of diagnosis that incorporates both solid medicine and his personal insights and intuitions into humanity and reality.
And it’s accurate depiction that the other doctors hate him. He is a heretic.
Some scientists are narrow minded the same way some religious people are narrow minded, and even some psychics are narrow minded. Oh, indeed. Intuitive perception is not immune to bias, no one is, and I don’t think immunity from bias is even necessary. I don’t think we can or will ever achieve that. If we could, I don’t think that mind would be clearer. They would become more blinded, cutting themselves off from the reality they were first moved to describe by severing the natural connection they started from.
So visualize this with me if you will, and there are scientists who are doing this even at risk of professional disgrace. Orthodox science is fond of attacking anything that they consider too interdisciplinary. They seem determined to make certain no connections are made, but there are those who do it anyway. Take each line drawn through reality by the individual disciplines, put them into a common framework, consider the reality they describe as a whole, and what would they call that type of thinking?
Lateral thinking? Yes. They would call it lateral thinking.
Holistic? Holistic thinking. Metaphysical thinking. We don’t kill god by trying to take the ghost out of the machine. We kill ourselves.
Now do I believe that a scientific metaphysics is the only form necessary? Not at all, but the consequences of rejecting and resisting scientific metaphysics have been severe, have they not? We have given sanction to scientists to deconstruct our reality without accountability.
What has been lost? What science without metaphysics has lost is a sense of why it is seeking in the first place, as well as a basis of judgement for what technologies should be implemented. Any scientist who resists a technology because it is inhumane to other life forms tends to get labelled a bleeding heart.
We have increased our ‘specialists’ and become weaker in our ‘generalists’? Indeed, and weaker in our root all around. Nothing starts out specialized, or survives as a specialist without support from the reality around it. Cut any single life form adrift from the greater whole and it will simply die.
It is microscope thinking, not seeing the big picture, dissecting. You cannot truly see something from only bits and pieces.
Metaphysics sees it as one. Ah, indeed. With the loosening of the previously fixed images we had of ourselves and other species as static entities, we can’t help but venture into metaphysical thinking. It opens the question, “If we don’t have to be this, then what can we be?” and “What are we in the first place?”
We are allowed outside of the human box. Yes. If gene splicing fixes the abnormalities in my biological and neurological make-up then am I the same person? Another field would be brain-computer interface technology. If we can make technologies that function as a seamless extension of our minds, then what would it mean to claim that the mind is the same as the brain?
The concept that you can upload your consciousness to a database which many sci-fi stories have adopted. It may at first be strange, but consider this. Perhaps we have always been uploading our consciousness into the environment itself? Perhaps the apparent intelligence in nature is indistinguishable from human? All the seemingly wilful and strange behaviour we experience in nature just a reflection of the continuation of human consciousness?
It would seem that the important thing would be if we were prompted by the information or just able to access it. Ah indeed, communication would be very important, but even if we can just access that, it would give us a width and depth of experience to make the potential for insight into reality immeasurable.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.