A reflection on Daoist philosophy, the cognitive sciences, science and conceptual limitations

This is a short essay I wrote in response to a post online about the link between Daoism and the cognitive sciences. After receiving some positive feedback for it, I would like to share it openly with everyone.

"I find the theories of cognitive psychology and modern physics to be quite enlightening when trying to discuss philosophical Daoism (namely Laozi and Zhuangzi) and Zen Buddhism. And vice-versa, I find that Dao and Zen provide great terms and allegories for some of the concepts one might come across when reading up on scientific notions and philosophising about what it all means. The skepticism that the scientific method abets is in line with the skepticism needed to break preconceptions and biases too. However, we should remember the limits of the scientific method too, and realise that its affirmations are not quite in line with Dao or Zen. Science creates models. Dao and Zen transcend all limitations.

Let's look at how science can be assimilated to Dao or Zen. When you think about it, the Cosmos is an ocean of spacetime which accommodates the quantum fields that fundamental particles emerge from. These particles are nodes of energy in their respective quantum fields (e.g. the Higgs boson is a node in the Higgs field), interacting with one another in accordance with the laws of physics. These particles come with a trade-off of uncertainty in their location and momentum as well as their time and their energy. In Buddhist terms, this is "dharma" - the ultimate reality. This is the basis of truth. All the particles within this system (i.e. the Cosmos) are caught in a chain of cause-and-effect where pre-existing conditions resolve themselves into different situations according to the laws of physics. This has been going on from the Big Bang (if not earlier) until now and will go on forever more. In Daoist terms, this is "Dao" - "the way", the governing flow of change. It's so complex that it's beyond our full grasp. Buddhists might be tempted to speak of "karma" - action - and "samsara" - the cycle of action engendered by this game of cause-and-effect. In any case, it is a property of 'dharma' - the ultimate reality. It is one integrated thing, and we are but a part of it - a self-conscious drop in an ocean beyond our scope.

This is what the ultimate reality is, a flurry of spacetime and particles with inherent uncertainty. But it is not what we perceive. What we perceive is based on our sensory capacity and on our mental interpretations. We perceive less than 1% of the physical information available at any given moment. What we do see has been refined by millions of years of natural selection. The brain operates vis-à-vis reality by a sort of feedback loop. Our brain circuitry makes representations out of the flurry of information bombarding us at any given moment and makes use of it in order to create concepts, which it associates with other concepts, and so forth. This is learning. Learned information on the world is used in order to understand sensory information and mediate between the known and unknown. Every moment of life is unsure unless we have a preconceived notion of what is in front of us. We don't freak out when we see a car because we've already stored a concept of what it is and what it does, how it works, how it could be dangerous, etc. You've never seen that specific car before but your mind does the work. These associations are useful but can land us in trouble. As we associate things with concepts such as good and bad, we can cause ourselves needless suffering. This associative learning is "maya" in Buddhism - illusion. For example, a tendency to associate everything with negative concepts can lead to unipolar depression. In this way, we create distinctions between all things in the world when they were once just one complex, integrated system of interactions. The ultimate reality doesn't conceive of dualistic notions - there's no particle that controls for whether something is good or bad. It is us who decide. Breaking beyond this conceptual matrix is the goal of "wu wei" and "satori", by which we come to understand reality as it is and act in accordance with it. We learn that the world as we see it both exists and doesn't exist. It is only one reality being perceived through the lenses of billions of individuals, each only manifestations of the whole.

This is all well and good. We've had a run-through of some scientific notions and associated them with Daoist and Buddhist terminology. But there is the problem. Again, we're engaging with reality with the use of concepts. The point of Dao and Zen is to experience everything without judgement and accept it, not to intellectually analyse and model it. Furthermore, these models only distance us from the truth. The scientific method is a work in progress, not an indefinite establishment of ideas. At its very core is the concept of falsifiability. Each theory must be falsifiable so that we can expand upon it by experiment. What was once Newtonian physics was superseded by general relativity and quantum physics, and they will both eventually be superseded (if we survive for long enough to see that happen). If a theory is unfalsifiable, it holds up but comes with conceptual baggage attached. Each scientific theory proposes a model that is elaborated upon by other theories - they are not set in stone. And even then, they don't necessarily agree with one another in how they model the world. Try reconciling general relativity with quantum physics and you'll see why. They both are lenses looking at reality but do not agree in places. They make use of concepts such as "graviton" and "warped space-time" to talk about the same thing, and are only useful in terms of context. You want to understand the mass of a car? Try Newtonian physics. You want to understand the mass of an electron? Try quantum physics. They both describe the same thing but need two competing theories in order to do so. Which one holds the truth? Neither. You might argue that it's quantum physics because this goes into more depth, but that is only a more refined model still grasping at the truth. It does not hold all the answers and can be improved. We will tend more and more towards the truth but will never be able to grasp it for as long as we try to model it. You cannot pin down what is ever-changing. And even if you had the formula for the theory of everything in front of you, how would you be able to process it?

In short, I find it interesting using science such as cognitive psychology in order to understand some Daoist and Buddhist notions, and vice-versa. However, there are still limits. What is one integrated system of complexity - reality - is pieced into different parts as though they had no business being stuck together. And where do we stop? What makes up an atom? What makes up a quark? What makes up a quantum field? Similarly, what is a thought? What is it made up of? What makes up a brain network? What makes up a neuron? Fallible concepts will answer to fallible concepts, and none of us will have broken through. Science provides steps but won't take the leap for you."

• A. von Mayenburg, February 2021