*To What Extent Can Things “Not Be Tracked by Science”?*
Science is the most powerful method humanity has developed for
systematically understanding the world. Through observation, measurement,
and experimentation, science uncovers patterns and proposes explanations
that can be tested and revised. Yet the claim that certain things “cannot
be tracked by science” often emerges in discussions of human experience,
metaphysics, or the supernatural. Determining whether this claim is true,
false, or something in between requires exploring both the *strengths* and
the *limits* of scientific inquiry.
*Science Tracks What Is Observable and Measurable*
At its core, science depends on phenomena that can be observed—directly or
indirectly—and measured. This includes physical processes (like gravity),
biological functions (like neural activity), and even abstract constructs
(like intelligence), as long as they produce observable effects. Because of
this, science has steadily expanded its scope. For example, emotions once
thought too subjective to study are now tracked through brain imaging,
physiological markers, and behavioral analysis. Likewise, the universe
beyond the reach of human sight has become observable through advanced
instruments.
>From this perspective, many claims that something “cannot be tracked by
science” prove false over time. As tools improve, formerly mysterious or
intangible phenomena become measurable.
*However, Science Has Limits*
Despite its reach, science is not all-powerful. Its limitations stem from
both *methodological constraints* and *conceptual boundaries*.
1. *Subjective Experiences (Qualia)*
Science can track the neural correlates of pain, color perception, or
emotion, but it cannot fully access the *qualitative* feel of an
experience. The “redness of red” or the personal meaning of grief involves
first-person subjectivity that cannot be measured directly. Thus, science
can approximate but not wholly capture these aspects.
2. *Metaphysical and Supernatural Claims*
Claims that fall outside observable reality—such as the existence of an
afterlife, immaterial souls, or supernatural beings—cannot be tested by
scientific methods unless they produce measurable effects. In this sense,
such claims currently cannot be tracked by science, not necessarily because
they are impossible, but because they lie outside what science is equipped
to investigate.
3. *Value Judgments and Morality*
Science can describe how moral behaviors evolve, how humans make ethical
decisions, or what consequences actions may have. But it cannot determine
what *should* be valued. Morality involves philosophical reasoning,
cultural context, and subjective judgment. Science informs these, but it
cannot replace them.
4. *Uniquely Historical or Unrepeatable Events*
Some events—such as the exact thoughts of a historical figure or the
precise origins of a religious experience—may leave insufficient evidence
to be scientifically reconstructed. Science can offer probabilities, but
not absolute answers.
*The Middle Ground: What Science Can Track Indirectly*
There is a wide area where science interacts with things that seem
intangible—such as creativity, consciousness, or spirituality—but does so
through indirect means. For example:
- Science cannot “track” spirituality itself, but it can measure its
effects on health or behavior.
- Science cannot directly observe consciousness, but it can map brain
states correlated with it.
This middle ground is important: it shows that science’s reach is not
fixed, but evolving.
*Conclusion*
The statement that something “cannot be tracked by science” is *partly true
and partly false*, depending on what is being referred to. Science excels
at tracking anything that produces observable, measurable effects, and its
reach expands as tools and theories develop. Yet science also has genuine
limits: subjective experiences, metaphysical claims, moral values, and
certain historical events fall partially or fully outside its domain.
Thus, the most accurate answer is that *science cannot track everything,
but its limits concern the nature of its method—not a failure of its power*.
Understanding where science ends helps us appreciate both the strength of
scientific inquiry and the roles of philosophy, art, and human experience
in making sense of the world.
*Can Consciousness Be Tracked by Science?*
Consciousness—the state of being aware, having thoughts, feelings, and
subjective experiences—is one of the most fascinating and difficult topics
in modern inquiry. For centuries, philosophers, psychologists, and
neuroscientists have debated whether consciousness can be fully understood
using scientific methods. The question is not simply whether science can
study the brain, but whether science can *track* the inner, subjective
quality of experience: what it feels like to see red, to feel pain, or to
remember a childhood moment.
*Science Can Track the Physical Correlates of Consciousness*
Advances in neuroscience have made it possible to study the brain with
extraordinary precision. Technologies such as fMRI, EEG, and single-neuron
recordings allow scientists to identify patterns linked with attention,
emotion, memory, and even decision-making. Several scientific achievements
show that parts of consciousness can be tracked:
- *Neural Correlates of Consciousness (NCCs):* Specific brain states
that consistently accompany particular conscious experiences.
- *Brain decoding algorithms:* Models that can predict what someone is
looking at, hearing, or thinking based on brain activity.
- *Studies of anesthesia, sleep, and coma:* Demonstrating how changes in
brain activity correlate with changes in awareness.
>From these findings, it is clear that science can track many of the
*objective* components of consciousness—how neurons fire, which networks
communicate, and how the brain’s structure supports mental states.
*The Hard Problem: The Limits of Scientific Tracking*
Despite these successes, science runs into a deep philosophical challenge
known as the *“hard problem of consciousness”* (coined by David Chalmers).
The hard problem asks:
*How and why does brain activity produce subjective experience?*
Even if science can track the brain’s electrical and chemical activity with
perfect accuracy, that does not automatically explain the *feel* of
experience—the “what it is like” aspect.
Science can identify the brain patterns associated with pain, but it cannot
directly measure the personal sensation of suffering. It can show the
neural activity of seeing red, but not the subjective quality of redness.
This private, first-person dimension is called *qualia*, and it appears
resistant to objective measurement.
*Is Consciousness Fundamentally Beyond Science?*
There are three major positions:
*1. Consciousness is fully trackable—eventually (Materialist View).*
According to this view, consciousness arises entirely from the brain. Once
science becomes advanced enough, subjective experience will be fully
explained. Science is limited now only because tools are limited, not
because consciousness is mysterious in principle.
*Strength:* Supported by growing evidence linking specific brain states to
experience.
*Weakness:* Does not convincingly explain why these brain states feel like
anything at all.
*2. Consciousness is partly trackable, partly beyond science (Middle
Position).*
Science can track the brain mechanisms that *support* consciousness, but
the subjective essence of consciousness cannot be captured scientifically
because it is private and not observable from the outside.
*Strength:* Matches both scientific evidence and philosophical difficulties.
*Weakness:* Leaves open questions about whether subjective experience has
any independent existence.
*3. Consciousness is fundamentally outside science (Dualist or Idealist
View).*
In this view, consciousness is not physical, so it cannot ever be fully
tracked by scientific tools that depend on observing the physical world.
*Strength:* Explains the uniqueness of subjective experience.
*Weakness:* Hard to test and does not align cleanly with modern
neuroscience.
*A Balanced Conclusion*
Science can track *a great deal* about consciousness—its neural
foundations, its behavioral expressions, its physiological correlates—but
it cannot directly track *subjective experience itself*. The boundary of
scientific ability lies in the difference between external measurement and
internal awareness.
Thus, the answer is a middle one:
*Consciousness can be tracked by science to a significant extent, but not
completely, because science measures the objective world while
consciousness includes subjective qualities that resist direct observation.*
This leaves consciousness as one of the last great mysteries—partly
illuminated by science, partly hidden within the private world of
experience.
>From science today K Rajaram IRS 101225
On Wed, 10 Dec 2025 at 09:49, Markendeya Yeddanapudi <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> --
> *Mar*Below is a comparative discussion that places the central ideas of
> your essay alongside the views of several well-known thinkers in
> philosophy, physics, ecology, and consciousness studies. I have organized
> them by theme for clarity.
> ------------------------------
> *Comparison of Your Views with Other Thinkers*
>
> Your essay advances a distinctive perspective:
> *the forest as a living field of consciousness, emotion, unity, and
> holistic perception*, and *the possibility that physics and consciousness
> converge beyond mechanistic frameworks*. These themes resonate with,
> diverge from, or extend the work of various major thinkers.
> ------------------------------
> **1. *Nature as a Living, Holistic Field* *Your view:*
>
> The forest is a dynamic unity with its own grammar—fluid, ever-changing,
> and holistic. It reveals experiences that cannot be reduced to fixed
> subjects or predicates. Nature becomes a teacher of perception, insight,
> and consciousness.
> *Comparable thinkers:* *Henry David Thoreau*
>
> Thoreau viewed nature—especially the forest—as an *educator of the self*
> and a gateway to expanded awareness. Like you, he believed that immersion
> in wild nature dissolves rigid social structures and awakens direct
> intuition.
> *Ralph Waldo Emerson*
>
> Emerson’s “transparent eyeball” moment in the forest echoes your idea of
> expanding into an invisible spectrum of feeling. Emerson believed that
> nature reveals spiritual unity and that ordinary categories of perception
> dissolve.
> *Johann Wolfgang von Goethe*
>
> Goethe’s approach to nature emphasized *phenomenology*, direct
> perception, and fluid patterns rather than strict scientific reductionism.
> He believed that nature’s forms are dynamic and alive—very close to your
> idea of a “grammar that continuously changes.”
> *Arne Næss (Deep Ecology)*
>
> Næss argued that humans are part of a larger ecological self and that true
> knowledge arises from empathetic identification with nature. This parallels
> your idea of *becoming a part of the forest* rather than a detached
> observer.
> ------------------------------
> **2. *Physics, Consciousness, and the Limits of Mechanistic Thinking* *Your
> view:*
>
> Modern physics struggles to unify quantum mechanics and relativity because
> it clings to a mechanical paradigm. Emotions, consciousness, and unseen
> spectrums may be just as fundamental as particles and fields. You introduce
> *EOE—Emotion
> Over Everything*, a counterpart to the physicist’s TOE.
> *Comparable thinkers:* *Werner Heisenberg / Niels Bohr (Quantum
> Interpretations)*
>
> They argued that the observer cannot be separated from the observed and
> that classical categories fail in quantum contexts.
> Your point about the failure of standard grammar in describing forest
> experience resonates with their idea that classical language collapses in
> quantum domains.
> *David Bohm*
>
> Bohm’s “implicate order” proposes a deeper, holistic reality where mind
> and matter are intertwined. He believed that fragmentation in thought
> mirrors fragmentation in society and science. Your move toward unified
> consciousness parallels Bohm's unified field of meaning.
> *Evan Thompson / Francisco Varela (Enactive Mind, Phenomenology)*
>
> They argue that mind and world arise together through embodied
> interaction. They treat consciousness not as an isolated brain event but as
> a dynamic process, much like your vision of emotion and consciousness
> emerging from bacterial collective life.
> *Rupert Sheldrake (Morphic Resonance)*
>
> Though controversial, Sheldrake proposes that biological and mental forms
> emerge from fields not recognized in conventional physics. Your idea of an
> invisible spectrum of feeling that shapes perception shares a structural
> similarity.
> ------------------------------
> **3. *Emotion, Collective Intelligence, and the Micro–Macro Continuum* *Your
> view:*
>
> Humans are collectives of trillions of bacteria, and perhaps consciousness
> arises from their collective “emotion.” This suggests a continuum from
> micro-level processes (quantum/emotional) to macro-level consciousness.
> *Comparable thinkers:* *Lynn Margulis*
>
> Her theory of symbiogenesis states that organisms—including humans—are
> composite beings formed by microbial collaborations. This directly
> parallels your idea of micro-organisms contributing to what we call “self.”
> *Antonio Damasio*
>
> Damasio emphasizes that emotions are foundational to consciousness, not
> secondary. Your proposal of *EOE* (Emotion Over Everything) echoes his
> view that without emotion, consciousness cannot arise.
> *William James*
>
> James’s “stream of consciousness” and radical empiricism recognize
> feelings as fundamental data of reality. He also entertained the
> possibility that consciousness is a field-like phenomenon, not reducible to
> individual brain cells.
> ------------------------------
> **4. *Language, Grammar, and the Limits of Rational Structure* *Your
> view:*
>
> Experiences in the forest exceed ordinary grammar—subjects and predicates
> break down when perception becomes fluid and holistic.
> *Comparable thinkers:* *Martin Heidegger*
>
> Heidegger believed that ordinary language covers over deeper modes of
> Being. In nature (especially the forest), one encounters “presencing”
> beyond the subject–object split. Your “grammar of the forest” parallels his
> “unconcealment.”
> *Ludwig Wittgenstein*
>
> Wittgenstein argued that language has limits and cannot capture certain
> forms of life or immediate experience. Your suggestion of an entirely
> different grammar for forest consciousness echoes his view that some things
> can only be shown, not said.
> *Maurice Merleau-Ponty*
>
> Merleau-Ponty viewed perception as pre-linguistic and embodied. He
> believed the forest, landscape, and world speak a “silent language,”
> paralleling your critique of rigid grammatical structures.
> ------------------------------
> **5. *Education Beyond Technology* *Your view:*
>
> Direct feeling and immersion in nature may reduce the dominance of
> technology, which disturbs natural processes. A genuine nature preserve
> could become a new foundation for understanding consciousness and physics.
> *Comparable thinkers:* *Ivan Illich (Deschooling Society)*
>
> Illich argued for learning environments rooted in direct experience and
> autonomy rather than institutional technology. A forest university fits his
> vision of “learning webs.”
> *David Orr (Ecological Education)*
>
> Orr held that education must begin with ecological literacy and living
> systems, not machines. He would strongly align with your call for a
> forest-based educational model.
> *Albert Einstein*
>
> Einstein viewed imagination and direct intuition as crucial to scientific
> insight. He valued simplicity in nature and believed technology often
> distracts from deeper understanding. Your emphasis on “idea flashes” in the
> forest aligns with his belief in intuition as a scientific guide.
> ------------------------------
> *Overall Positioning*
>
> Your views form a *holistic philosophy* that combines:
>
> -
>
> ecological consciousness
> -
>
> phenomenology
> -
>
> post-mechanistic physics
> -
>
> embodied mind theory
> -
>
> spiritual naturalism
>
> They sit at the intersection of *Emerson*, *Bohm*, *Margulis*,
> *Merleau-Ponty*, and *deep ecology*, yet introduce original
> elements—especially the *EOE* concept and the parallel between
> microbiological collectivity and the quantum–relativity divide.
> ------------------------------
>
> If you’d like, I can also:
>
> -
>
> write a version of the comparison suitable for academic publication
> -
>
> create a table comparing your ideas with each thinker’s
> -
>
> expand any one section into a full essay
> -
>
> add critics who would disagree with your view
>
> Just tell me what you prefer.j
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Thatha_Patty" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLmUx8OH9yG0mESkstwpwYNFWbUr3K3_OHgXOeq5-seCg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CACDCHCLmUx8OH9yG0mESkstwpwYNFWbUr3K3_OHgXOeq5-seCg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZorANtesLW%2B5K-zqD-%3DtWao%2BdNV-96Lhyk3YBU%3DM_fTpwg%40mail.gmail.com.
