Nature's imagination is far greater than imagination of humans

This is my favorite quote from the early chapters of a book by theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss (The Edge of Knowledge:Unsolved Mysteries of the Cosmos) among the passages that I shared in a recent blog post.

Because this, to me, is the most fascinating aspect of the cosmos: that it keeps surprising us. The imagination of nature is far greater than the imagination of humans. In my own work, every day I am surprised if I am not surprised.

So true. I love the eminently scientific notion that nature surpasses the imagination of us humans.

Of course, Krauss, being an atheist, isn't saying that nature is the product of some god's creativity. Rather, however the laws of nature came to be, and there's no evidence of a supernatural origin, the result is beyond what the imagination of we Homo sapiens is capable of comprehending.

But here's the good news. Humans aren't separate from nature. Nature is us; we are nature.

So even though we may never be able to comprehend all of the mysteries of the cosmos that Krauss discusses in his book, bit by bit, year by year, century by century, humans will use our nature-given talents to grasp more and more of how nature operates.

At least, that's my optimistic view.

I'm assuming that religious dogmatism or political attacks on science won't sidetrack scientific progress. This is one of the things, among many, that worries me about the prospect of Donald Trump getting another term as president in the  2024 election.

Trump has no respect for facts, knowledge, or science. That's bad enough, but much worse is the prospect that he would pursue anti-science policies if voters were so foolish as to give him four more years to pursue his authoritarian agenda.

Trump isn't religious. He doesn't believe in anything but his own selfish desires.

However, because he appointed three conservative justices to the Supreme Court who overturned a long-standing precedent that enshrined a woman's right to choose an abortion in every state, Trump has a lot of support from evangelical Christians who have a thoroughly dualistic view of reality.

To them, God is the creative power, not nature. Humans are supposed to obey the fundamentalist Christian fantasy of God, not any other religious fantasy. So nature is denigrated, since God supposedly wants humans to rule over nature, just as God rules over us.

Today I started reading the cover story in the October 7, 2023 issue of New Scientist: "You and Your Microbiome." The microbiome is the trillions of microbes that inhabit our gut along with other parts of the body. The story says:

The microbes that colonise us, collectively known as the microbiome, challenge the concept of a discrete self. These include bacteria, viruses and fungi, although the bacteria are the best studied. Together, these microbes orchestrate the immune system, influence how the brain works and grows, and affect our personality and feelings.

Over a third of the genes in the human genome have a bacterial origin, and the action of trillions of microbial genes in the gut has direct impacts on our nutrition and metabolism. Recognizing this leads to the startling conclusion that a discrete human body isn't an individual, it is a "metaorganism."

[Thomas] Bosch, who runs a metaorganism research centre, is one of a growing number of scientists who say the key elements that we believe make us individuals are themselves produced by interactions with microorganisms. If this is the case, we need to rethink what it means to be human.

"Certainly, the line that demarcates where we end and the external world begins is up for debate," says Geraint Rogers at the South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute in Adelaide.

...All this has profound implications for what it means to be human. For hundreds of years, people have considered themselves apart from nature, which has led to an unfolding crisis of overexploitation of the environment.

"Humans were always thinking they were different, they were better than nature, they looked at nature as something foreign," says Bosch. "We have to go back to thinking that we are all part of an integrated, living cosmos. We are not better or separate -- if we look in our own body, we are full of nature."

Comments

[Spence Tepper]

There is intelligence in the biological world wherever you look and at each level of depth.

Whole societies behave as organisms.

But as for the nature of anthropomorphic attributes, even one concept of individual human being us a construction.

Still, we have a point of view, a point of perspective and vision.

We should always try to broaden it, to understand from a different, more inclusive view.

Then there is hardly you and I, heroes and demons at all...

There is just enlightenment and understanding, and relative ignorance.

[Ron E.]

“But here's the good news. Humans aren't separate from nature. Nature is us; we are nature.” Humans were always thinking they were different, they were better than nature, they looked at nature as something foreign," says Bosch.” "We have to go back to thinking that we are all part of an integrated, living cosmos. We are not better or separate -- if we look in our own body, we are full of nature."

It always surprises me, in fact it’s equally sad and funny that humans have thought (and still do apparently) that we are different and separate from nature. And yes: “For hundreds of years, people have considered themselves apart from nature, which has led to an unfolding crisis of over-exploitation of the environment.”

The thing that separates us from nature I believe, is our habits of thought. Our thinking has evolved to the point where it has assumed a self, a self that is the result of every experience and necessary piece of information that we have absorbed.

The self, being comprised of every piece of data that provides us with an identity, has become more important to maintain and protect that our bodies. Obviously, it is necessary to know the practical day-to-day things that are needed to navigate this world, but the self has become so important (to itself) any challenge to its contents is often felt as more threatening than a physical threat, to the extent that where our self-interested opinions and beliefs are concerned, we can react quite aggressively – not to protect them but to protect the investments we have made that go to uphold the idea of a special and separate ‘me’.

There are no mysteries. Yes, we can find out much about ourselves and our environment and discover amazing things about the physical universe and, we can improve our lives and relationships, but we do know who we are – we are breathing, living, biological beings existing in a world with a myriad other beings.

[um]

>>The self, being comprised of every piece of data that provides us with an identity, has become more important to maintain and protect that our bodies<<

Indeed.

Living a cultural live has become more important than a natural life.
So much so that probably all "knowledge" of what a natural ive is all about, has been lost.

Ego, the sense of being a focus point in time and space of action and reaction, something related to the survival of the body etc, is imho part of what we are as natural beings.

Self is the cultural overlay of the natural ego

He said ... live a natural life in a natural way.
Obvious that is not the same as living a natural life in a cultural way.

So the question is ..how to live a natural life in an cultural world

It is possible when people in any position of authority, discover that the using of their talents and effort for the welfare of others and not solely for the welfare of themselves, is a pleasure of the same magnitude....service

Have a look around and you will see that ALL in authority, from the lowest level to the highest are just interested in presenting themselves in that role ... like drawing an spotlight on a person on the stage.

Yes even those that are interested in public about the welfare of nature are ... i dare to say ... not at all interested in the welfare of the nature ...they just USE it to make them self seen as "better than":

The exemptions to the rule I beg for forgiveness.

[Sant64]

I like how this essay began with appreciation for the wonders of nature and science, and then shifted into a rant about those who stand in the way of the natural and scientific need to kill more babies.

[Tim Rimmer]

Sheldrake 2020 (Entangled Life) spends a lot of time pointing out that as he opened his mind to what fungi are, how they live and interact with us, his notion of being a separate self was starting to dissolve and many treasured notions of identity and autonomy were being called into question.
He builds on how such notions are tied to the language we use (e.g. English), which appears somewhat limited compared to say some indigenous types. He quotes Kimmerer:
“In English… there is no way to recognise the ‘simple existence of another living being’. If you’re not a human subject, by default you’re an inanimate object: an ‘it’, a ‘mere thing’. If you repurpose a human concept to help make sense of the life of a non-human organism, you’ve tumbled into the trap of anthropomorphism. Use ‘it’ and you’ve objectified the organism, and fallen into a different kind of trap” ( p. 46)
While we could argue that English can get around this to some degree, I get the point. To me, it’s showing how language is a critical factor in the creation of separation between ‘us’ and the world we live in. This belief in separation is the key ingredient for the environmental crisis in my view.
I think one of Sheldrake’s key points is about how immersed and interconnected we actually are in/with the natural world and describing things in purely physical terms - we’re basically a bunch of interrelated processes, as he says: ‘A mycelial network is a map of a fungus’s recent history, and is a helpful reminder that all life forms are in fact processes , not things (p.60).

[Ron E.]

Tim. Good comment and info on how language shapes our views re us and nature.