OK, now, lying in bed, I finally saw how this connects to something I have sensed all my life but never could explain… so here I sit at the computer at 4 am to try and put it all into words...
Death of the Scientific Paradigm?
If the sensory system of a living entity serves to tell it whether elements in its surroundings support (feed/help) it or not, and also whether that these element do so in a dependable way, then that means that the living entity itself must embody some regularly recurring process in and of itself.
This cyclical process inside an entity make up its “awareness”; its connection to sensory systems that gauge what goes on outside the entity give it “feelings”. The sensory systems itself must on the other hand have a branched structure in order not to have any interference in the connection between the “aware” and the outside world. Sensory systems with cyclical structures “only” transmit interpretations.
The presence of this cyclical process makes the entity “alive”. Death occurs when for some reason the cyclical process terminates. (Note that in “composite” entities (called “organisms”), sometimes smaller parts can die off while the greater organism continues to live on.)
The absence of this cyclical process makes the entity “dead” (by definition). Note that the death of an organism does not imply that all of its components have died already, too! Nor that the greater organism to which it belongs has died or must die as well.
At the same time, the absence of the cyclical process makes an entity “insensitive”, because any structures that might pass information cannot pass this information to any “awareness”.
Following this line of thought, let’s now consider our relationship with the scientific paradigm. This approach of the world uses a set of hypotheses and takes off from there, no circular reasoning allowed!
Considering the scientific paradigm as a separate entity and knowing that it doesn’t contain any circuits, surely we should call it a “dead” structure!?
But wait, didn’t we see earlier that living entities (such as people) use their senses to determine the trustworthiness of other entities, and that living entities do not consider dead entities trustworthy?
In other words, logical reasoning (a tree structure) by a living entity (me) tells that me that I cannot depend on the scientific paradigm in the long run!
So we see: the scientific paradigm’s hypothesis that it makes a trustworthy study of our surroundings without allowing circular reasoning or subjectivity cannot hold true according to logical reasoning!
I see two remedies (to regain my health):
a) Either the scientific paradigm needs to change and allow circular reasoning – which will make it “alive” and “sensitive”. Instead of a linear world view, it then becomes a world view based on (and depending on) cyclical patterns!
This will allow us to continue to see the paradigm as a trustworthy entity that lives independently of us.
b) We acknowledge the scientific paradigm’s untrustworthiness and recognize that it only serves as one of multiple sensory structures to probe the world around us.
This then implies that there no longer exists a single objective scientific truth that holds for all people – instead, the scientific method requires subjectivity in its perception of the world around us.