Tag: intuition

Overcoming the Limits of Science

Posted on by japineda
from Krisis and Praxis

Retirement came early for me in 2018 after a 30-year career in scientific research because of the limits I encountered following that approach. As I’ve written in my 2020 autobiography Piercing the Clouds, it became increasingly obvious that science could not provide me with answers to the burning, ultimate questions I had; questions about reality, consciousness, the mind, etc. (see My Unease with Science).

Trying to find answers, I convinced myself that knowledge could flow from other sources—such as first person or noetic experiences. Noetic means inner wisdom, direct knowing, intuition, or implicit understanding. It is a way of knowing beyond our traditional senses. Scientists often deride this approach as subjective, religious, even mystical. Their reasoning is that it lacks verifiability since by definition only one person can access such knowledge. And verifiability is the sine qua non of science—otherwise, how can one trust the results? It was, therefore, with a tremendous apprehension that I left academia to pursue such alternative approaches.

Even as this new direction bears fruit, there have been moments in which I’ve questioned the sanity of my decision. I still lack confidence in my own insights, and original thoughts lack truthfulness and validity until someone else confirms them. Hence, it was with a great deal of surprise and relief that I read the latest version of The New Scientist magazine (Jan 2023). Its discussion of the limits of knowledge instantly crystallized the fuzzy thoughts I had that led to my retirement. The coverage validated my decision to leave and motivated me to compose this essay as a summary of the arguments. The intention is to give a clear description, while providing a grounding of support for others’ questioning of the matter.

The first major problem encountered in terms of the limits of knowledge is that, from a scientific perspective, we must first be able to identify, define, and quantify the object of study. This does not prevent its investigation, but makes the process difficult, if not impossible. Quantum mechanics shows that the underlying nature of reality is probabilistic and inherently unknowable. This implies there is a hard limit to our understanding of it. Hence, we know of a handful of subjects that even the laws of nature tell us we can never study scientifically. While such a list is not exhaustive, it gives a sense of where we cannot go:

  • The inside of a black hole
  • Going beyond the edges of the expanding universe
  • Knowledge of the quantum world
  • The origin of life
  • The inner workings of the human soul
  • Consciousness
  • The supernatural 

Part of this limitation involves what scientists have termed “the limit of horizons.” Just like the horizon on a clear day represents a fundamental limit on how far we can see, imposed by the curvature of the earth, the origins of the universe and of life on earth are subject to a type of horizon. For about 300,000 years following the Big Bang, scientists theorize that the environment was so hot and dense that electrons, proton, neutrons, and even photons combined. Then, in what has been called “recombination” the universe cooled enough allowing charged particles to combine to form basic elements like hydrogen. This meant that photons, which have no charge, could no longer combine with other particles and were free to roam, allowing us the ability to “visualize” objects. For now, we cannot visualize the universe prior to recombination—a major constraint. Likewise, biologists can trace all species to a single organism. This last universal common ancestor (LUCA) gave root to all life on earth. Unfortunately, it’s the end of the trail since we cannot study what came before it. Thus, it represents a kind of horizon limiting scientific investigation of the origin of life.

Another major limitation to a scientific exploration is the complexity of nature, its objects, and their relationships. Weather prediction, understanding how a disease spreads, the way proteins fold, and how the brain works are so complex that we can only study tiny parts at a time. Super computers and artificial intelligence are approaches that have helped push the limits created by such complexity. At some point, however, these tools will “understand” but humans won’t—a limit we may have already crossed (see The Evolution of Multidimensionality).

A final limitation is that the tools we have to study nature and its complexities are inadequate. From language to describe the dynamics, to the mathematics that quantifies it, to logic and the science of the formal principles of reasoning, these either don’t exist or are insufficient. Mathematics, for example, has to make assumptions about reality—and its validity rests on such assumptions. Are we sure we are using the right assumptions? Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem states that if you have a consistent mathematical system (i.e., a set of axioms with no contradictions) in which you can do a certain amount of arithmetic, then there are statements in that system which are unprovable using only that system’s axioms. The mathematics is incomplete, and it is, therefore, impossible to prove everything. This problem reminds me of an Emily Dickinson poem on nature which asserts that, “Nature is what we know—Yet have no art to say—”

Given these and other limitations of science, what can overcome them? First is to recognize there are alternative paths to knowledge. Whether we focus on what we consider emotions or knowledge of the heart, action and selfless service, or faith, meditation, noetic, and religious experiences, what we learn from these alternative approaches is that we can indeed capture distinct aspects and dimensions of the same reality. These approaches provide access to unique forms of knowledge which may be indescribable, but an experience that we can still try to communicate to others.

In Defense of Science: A Middle Way

Posted on by japineda

Science is under increasing assault by President Trump and his administration. In his most recent decisions to take the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic for covid-19 and not to wear a mask in enclosed spaces, the President is refuting his own CDC recommendations. This is a pattern of anti-science, anti-medicine, and anti-intellectualism that has characterized this administration from the start. It is a reckless and dangerous stance, and something every scientist and health provider should oppose.


I trained as a scientist. And got a first-hand appreciation for the potential of this discipline to cut through the thicket of opinions, assumptions, hopes, and magical thinking to bring us closer to the truth.  I am convinced that science and the scientific method are humanity’s most sophisticated and impactful responses to the world of uncertainty in which we live. Science serves as an efficient way to resolve many of the questions our minds generate.

It works by verifying informed guesses against evidence and using the results as feedback to improve the guesswork. This scientific method involves systematic observation, experimentation, inductive and deductive reasoning, hypothesis testing, theory construction, reductionist and integrative approaches. These are all intellectual achievements of the highest order. They are the jewels of the human intellect, the right and indispensable tools to penetrate the thicket of the unknown.

Using such means, scientists have cured devastating diseases. Their investigations have increased human longevity. They have advanced farming to feed a growing race. And they have raised the standard of living for practically everyone in the planet. These are a few of the many triumphs brought about by science and its methodical approach. Such successes have provided it with an imprimatur of integrity and established an implied understanding that this is a trustworthy discipline.

If asked, most thoughtful people would agree that science, as a process for approaching truth, should be required teaching to our children. It is worth giving it the consideration it has earned. And it deserves defending as critical for the health and well-being of the world at large.

As a neuroscientist, I also realize there are diverse forms of obtaining knowledge, including faith-based methods, intuition, and other ways that complement the objective, scientific approach. Scientists must be modest enough to recognize the limits of the intellectual approach.  For one, science cannot deal with ultimate questions; It does not make moral or aesthetic judgments; It is not self-directed since it doesn’t tell us how to best use scientific knowledge; And it doesn’t draw inferences concerning paranormal explanations. When scientists dismiss these domains, and even worse belittle them, they place science at variance with other ways of acquiring knowledge.

Interestingly, our brains use these contrasting styles of thinking, of intelligence, and original ways of knowing. Linear and nonlinear, intellectual and intuitive approaches integrate seamlessly in our mind according to the needs and demands confronted. It’s a lesson that should instruct us when assessing whether to accept science over faith-based evidence or vice versa.  President Trump and his allies promote the use of faith-based, magical thinking, and intuition as the primary basis for decision making. They oppose science and intellectual thinking and by doing so create a conflict that isn’t real. The key is to know when, where and under what circumstances to apply such contrasting modes of thinking. That is the sign of a wiser mind.

Embracing Uncertainty Through Trust.

Posted on by japineda

The way my logical mind reacts to the chaos of the coronavirus pandemic reminds me of the trust I place on the Global Positioning System (GPS) on my smart phone. GPS is an amazing navigational program that uses at least 24 satellites, a receiver and algorithms to give location, velocity and time synchronization for air, sea and land travel. That means its navigational database and capabilities are a heck of a lot larger and better than mine. The relationship works well when I trust it to get me around, particularly to unfamiliar places. However, when a glitch occurs and I choose an unexpected wrong turn, I lose trust in the application.  More often than not, my ego interferes and judges that it is smarter and takes over. This leads to complications, getting turned around and lost. In the middle of this confusion, my anxious mind shows up and I start complaining and ranting. My persistence on following ego and not GPS leads to even more serious behaviors, such as arguing with my wife trying to justify my erratic choices. What gets me in trouble, then, is my rational mind, which thinks it is smarter than it really is. This isn’t any different when facing the uncertainty of a pandemic or any other life challenge.

The question is whom do I trust? My answer is to trust your instincts and intuitions. Our obsession with rational, deliberative thinking makes us unable or unwilling to let go and let our instincts and intuition be. Fear of lack of control associated with letting go reduces our trust. The tiny level of control that conscious, rational awareness provides is sufficient for us to cling to it. But I am talking about instincts and intuitions built on preparedness, on life experiences, on growing wisdom. Such trust provides a doorway to negotiate life’s obstacles in the face of enormous demands and uncertainties beyond the capacity of our rational mind. How do I begin? Times of uncertainty are actually good training ground to cultivate our intuitive and instinctual capacities. Here is one way:

EXERCISE:  How to Cultivate an Intuitive Mind

Allow Associative Thinking

Associative processing occurs when you allow your mind to “wander” and “free associate.” It can automatically link up seemingly unrelated ideas, thoughts, observations, sensory input, memory of existing knowledge with your intuitive subconscious or intuitive interface. Associative processing tends not to provide a direction or a goal. Curiosity drives it and is the basis for the good monkey mind.

  • Detach yourself from your thoughts and observe them from a distance
  • Observe without constraint and rationale
  • Permit and allow your mind to roam without purpose
  • Discard nothing that comes up
  • Note interesting ideas, write them
  • Keep roaming without direction and avoid judging those ideas that crop up
  • Increase your tolerance for ambiguity

Reducing Uncertainty in a Chaotic World

Posted on by japineda

In a world where confusion is an unavoidable aspect of being human, the coronavirus pandemic has increased chaos. And changed levels of uncertainty from moderate to extreme. This is a dangerous state from which to live, since high uncertainty inhibits our rational mind. It also dampens other means in our psychological toolbox that we count on—our instinct and intuition. Scientists tell us that instinct and intuition are often the only practical method for assessing uncertainty.  We want to know the future and minimize not-knowing. But our brains have not developed the capabilities or natural means to understand and determine probabilities. This is true of complex events such how this pandemic will affect us; or how our loved one will respond to the needed medical intervention. We don’t waste a lot of time and effort figuring this out because it is beyond our capability. Rather, we decide based on tendencies and beliefs about the likelihood of uncertain events.

Half a century ago, Kahneman and Tversky, two Israeli psychologists, showed that humans evolved strategies called heuristics. These strategies are economical and work well under most cases at predicting the immediate future. We use heuristics to form judgments, decide, and find solutions to complicated problems. They are the best guesses made under the circumstances. And distinct strategies are used to arrive at these judgments. One is focusing on the most important aspect of a problem. Another is basing responses on previous experiences. Heuristics are imperfect means to solve issues or make predictions, but good enough to reach a solution or decision quickly. These convenient and evolved strategies, however, lead to severe and systematic biases and errors. This is because they have a built-in trade-off between accuracy and effort.  Nature designed them to maximize speed of decision making with the least amount of effort. Unfortunately, they suffer in terms of accuracy.

Accuracy, however, is subjective, and what improves reliability is confidence and trust. We need to have confidence in life, God, Buddha nature, the government, anything that is greater than ourself. When uncertainty increases, trust decreases. And vice versa. The more we trust, the less the uncertainty, and the greater the accuracy. The key is to count on something or someone that is reliable. At this moment, trust in government, and maybe even medicine, teeters as the uncertainty grows. But it is important to trust in something. In the next few postings, I plan to share exercises to help cultivate trust in something and reduce uncertainty. Here is one to get started:

EXERCISE:  How to Cultivate an Intuitive Mind

Slow Down and Listen to Your Inner Voice
Learn to recognize “intuition.” Pay attention to your conscience, small inner voice, instincts, insights, and hunches. Before you can recognize your intuition, be able to hear/feel it amid the loudness and distractions of life. To do that, it’s important to first slow down and listen. Take time away from your normal routine. Spend time outdoors, or in an isolated place, with few distractions to practice this exercise.

Take a brief walk in a park, forest, or the beach.  Practice deep breathing and calm down the ongoing chatter of your mind. Imagine that your mind is like listening to noise caused by multiple radio stations playing all at once. You need to turn down the volume; to listen to the one station that is relevant and are searching for—your intuitive channel.