Creation, Reality & Mind, episode #4 _What is a Theory?_

What relationship does Theory have to Reality? How does an Hypothesis become a Theory? When does a Theory become a Fact? Is a Fact the same as a Truth? Can you experience a Truth?

FOOD for THOUGHT.

While listening to

the topic of ‘theory’ came up.

Gibson defined a theory as “repeatable observation”.

It is reasonable that observations be repeated successfully so that they may be verified and validated as a theory.

Years ago as a Science student at the University of Waterloo, I completed courses in the Scientific Method and Research Statistics, both prerequisites for a research project. Under the guidance of my Bio-Mechanics Professor, I completed the entire project single-handedly including: Hypothesis development, Review of relevant Reseach Publications, Study Design, Testing and Data capture for the research subjects, Data Analysis,  formulating Conclusions, and writing the Research Paper. This experience, and reading many research papers since, informed my appreciation of Gibson’s description of a theory.

Different Stokes

Some researchers write books and publish theories without ever conducting a research project using real test subjects and the Scientific Method. The famous Linguistics Philosopher, Noam Chomsky, is one of those people.

Chomsky conducted ‘thought experiments’. He “tested” each hypothesis using logical arguments without ever carrying out physical experiments.

Thought experiments were the method of investigation commonly used by philosophers throughout history. Great thinkers like Aristotle, Thomas Acquinas, Adam Smith and Charles Darwin succeeded in furthering human knowledge in this manner.

Chomsky as a philosopher, not a scientist. His most famous papers and books were published in the 1960s and 1970s well before the computer revolution which led to many of the advanced methods and tools used today to perform scientific research.

Edward Gibson is an interesting Human Language scientist. Following graduation with Mathematics and Computer Science degree from Canada’s Queens University, ‘Ted’ attended Cambridge University. He investigated the structure and formation of human language applying the experimental tools and methods common to Engineering disciplines. That one year of study became his life’s work. He became and remains fascinated with the complexity of the subject matter and the protential to further our understanding of language using the novel approaches he employs.

Daniel Dennett, Philosopher of Consciousness

A few days after his interview with Dr. Jordan Peterson, Dr. Daniel Dennett passed away. The YouTube podcast has not been posted as yet online but I heard their discussion on the Apple Podcast linked. Their talk dove-tailed nicely with the Fridman-Gibson topic. Dennett was of particular interest to me because, as an atheist, he respectfully and intelligently discussed the topic of morality with Peterson, a Christian and Bible scholar. However, I digress.

Some questions that arose from both of those discussions remain for me to contemplate in relation to my own thoughts about Creation, Reality & Mind:

• Does thought arise from language, or is the reverse true?

• Does mind require a brain, or is the brain a manifestation of artifacts of consciousness?

• Are mind and consciousness the same thing?

• Is the function of mind/consciousness awareness to be the ‘observer’?

Testing the notion of ‘theory’.

An hypothesis is required to be tested in order to formulate a theory. Two distinctly different testing approaches exist:

“CLASSICAL”, the philosophical approach used by Noam Chomsky.

“EXPERIMENTAL”, the scientific approach used by Edward Gibson.

Is one better than the other to arrive at an established theory, or at least to a degree of verification suitable to potentially lead to validation? Let’s consider a few examples of hypotheses and which test approaches best apply.

Testing the “God Hypothesis”

Hypothesis: “God exists”.

This hypothesis cannot be tested experimentally. Only the classical approach has ever been used because there is no way to physically test a God that is immaterial. Thought experiments , carried out by innumerable religious and secular  philosophers, have posed many logical arguments and anecdotal claims in attempts to verify the hypothesis.

Hypothesis: “People believe that God exists”.

This hypothesis can be tested experimentally using surveys and statistics. The strength of the hypothesis is determined by the proportion of respondents who choose to AGREE against those who DISAGREE. If the replies split 50/50, then the hypothesis would be rejected as too weak to be accepted as a good theory.

Hypothesis: “All people believe that God exists”.

If the survey data shows that 90% AGREE and 10% DISAGREE, the hypothesis may suggest a strong theory. However, if the results appear suspicious to other researchers, the study methodology may undergo scrutiny to uncover potential bias in the study design. (Example: perhaps the survey was only administered to parishioners in attendance at a Sunday church service?) Additional testing may follow by other researchers under different testing controls.

Testing the Climate Change Crises Hypothesis.

Hypothesis: “CO2 molecules exist”.

This is a proven theory tested and verified many times experimentally. It may have existed as an unverified hypothesis in the past, perhaps suggested as thought experiments by philosophers before science was sufficiently advanced to test and verify it conclusively.

Hypothesis: “The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2 into earth’s atmosphere”.

This has been proven true experimentally and is accepted as scientific fact.

Hypothesis: “The CO2 molecule can ignite a fire”.

This is an hypothesis that can be tested classically and experimentally. To date, neither method of investigation has provided any evidence in favour of the hypothesis being true. Hence, it remains an hypothesis will little prospect of ever reaching the status as a proven theory.

Testing the mind-brain hypothesis.

Hypothesis: “Thoughts and feelings occur in the human mind”.

Thoughts and feelings arose in human consciousness. As artifacts of human consciousness, they cannot be tested and measured directly. This is an hypothesis that only be tested using the classical approach.

Experiments can and have been conducted on the human brain based on the unproven assumption that the brain and mind (consciousness) are so tightly linked that inferences about thoughts and feeling can be accurately determined, by proxy, through data of brain activity gathered by modern instrumentation.

Hypothesis: “The brain is the “seat of the soul”, the source of thoughts and feelings”

This hypothesis has been tested classically by philosophers like Noam Chomsky. Scientists like Edward Gibson have tested experimentally. Both have studied human language. Chomsky, for example, proposed that language precedes and grounds thought while Gibson studies language centres in the brain. So far, attempts to identify in the brain where thoughts and feeling arise remain elusive and untestable.

Hypothesis: “Thoughts and feelings exist beyond time, space and matter”.

Gibson’s failed attempts to find a brain location from which thoughts and feelings arise suggests this hypothesis. Understanding the human mind and the nature and source of consciousness may remain a mystery undeterminably.

However, we know that thoughts and feeling exist experientially. In fact, none of what you have read so far could have registered in your awareness if your mind did not exist.

Hypothesis: “God is consciousness.

Consciousness is God.

Nothing exists beyond the Mind of God”.

This hypothesis is my own. I am not religious and consider the God of the Bible to be a flawed human creation to attempt an understanding of the ineffable. However, the term ‘God’ is familiar and serves as a useful proxy for my conceptualization of the ‘infinite and eternal Mind’ in which all thoughts and feelings arise as a source of creativity and manifestations of “reality”. Philosophers can challenge this hypothesis using logical arguments, but it is beyond experimental investigation.

As “beings of consciousness”, we each experience our minds continually.

No testing is required the validate this theory.

BONUS

Listen to an interesting discussion about consciousness and the brain between Dr. Jordan Peterson and Dr. Iain McGilchrist - a psychiatrist, neuroscience researcher, philosopher and literary scholar.