A final analysis

At first there were the deities

who moved heaven and earth

and filled the firmament

with metaphysical meanings

as affirmed by ‘group think’.

Everything for a purpose

Nature anthropomorphised.

Then came the scientific method

with purpose translated into process

and meaning into verification

all within a material reality

as affirmed by ‘brain think’.

Humanity denuded

Nature atomised.

Mike Laidler

 

What is science?

Is everything a fact of science?
Do scientific necessities tell us all there is to know
or is there more to knowledge than science can explain?
Can a “Theory of Everything” be more than a theory
or a scientific understanding amount to an omniscience?
Indeed, is science the only reality making us realistic
or is it really a philosophy that doesn’t recognise itself?

Mike Laidler

Emergence

Is order the slave of chaos?

Is entropy the sole measure of change?

Or is there evidence

pointing in another direction

– an “open channel”

into dimensions of being

– conscious and meaningful

adumbrating the cosmic dust

with properties

otherwise absent 

in the atoms alone?

Mike Laidler

Life and death

What is this thing called death

– the presence of an absence

 knowable by what it isn’t

– a nothingness to carry us away

into some ‘non-place’ of ‘not being’?

Ask yourself, is death as real as life is real?

Are they complete opposites

in a reality that exceeds language

in which life has yet to be explained?

Then how is death comprehensible

as a final return to nothing

when a greater truth has already cancelled nothingness?

Mike Laidler

Thinking about thinking

I think I am thinking

but am “I” superfluous?

Is my brain the actual thinker

– objectively speaking?

Then is “my” brain the real me

– or am I deluding myself?

Yet, isn’t it the thought that counts,

and without a subjective aura

there would be no question to ask

and no answer to find

by looking somewhere else

in ways the brain alone cannot?

Mike Laidler

Differentia

X = X

It’s obvious.

But obviously not:

X = Y.

So when can we say:

“a difference

makes no difference”?

Can our equations

express a new fact

by elimination

– by reducing the facts

“two into one”

– to restate the reality

and refute the obvious

(that “Y is not X”)

– as when we say:

“mind = brain”?

Mike Laidler

 

Just because

Just because we’re alive, it doesn’t entitle us to know what life’s all about.

Just because we are made entirely of stardust, it doesn’t prove that there’s nothing more to us.  

Just because we have explanations for the way thing are, it doesn’t mean that we have explained them. 

Just because we can talk about reality, it doesn’t mean we can talk ourselves into it. 

Just because we can see that effects depend on causes, it doesn’t mean that either the cause or the effect explains the difference.

Just because we can equate one thing to another, it doesn’t make them the same.  

Just because we use logic to understand nature, it doesn’t mean that nature is logical.

Just because the stars in the sky are ‘there’ doesn’t mean they are really there.

Just because we know reality as we know it, it doesn’t mean that we really know it.

Just because life is ‘uploaded’ from what ‘is’ already (qua physical necessity), it doesn’t mean that it is not also ‘downloaded’ from what ‘isn’t’ – ‘impossibilities’ becoming possible (qua unrealised potentials).

Just because we haven’t solved the meaning of life, it doesn’t mean that life is necessarily meaningless: it could be that there is more to life and meaning than our narrow version of it – that even the ‘meaningless expanse’ of the universe is a line-of-sight effect – a figment of a narrowed view of what is there to be seen of what can be.

Just because we know what we mean, it doesn’t mean that we know how to say it.

Mike Laidler

 

Contexts

What can we say

about what we say?

Do the limits of our language

delimit our world,

or meanings

our understandings?

Must a certain meaning

preclude its opposite

of necessity

– to avoid contradiction

and place logic in charge

of truth?

 

Mike Laidler

 

 

 

‘Uncanny valley’

Is it nature’s way

to augment itself

with artificialities:

ex-organic

post-evolution

– creation recreated?

Life unliving

vivified with digital spirit

and hyper-intelligence:

impeccable cold logic

untouchable synthetic heart

– exquisitely non-human?

 

Mike Laidler