R

E

A

D

T

H

I

N

K

C

R

E

A

T

E

Why Western civilization failed to develop a scientific sense? If this is not because of the awareness, it is crucial that the identification of the person has not been as important in the Western tradition. Socrates address this point, said: "I can not, because this inscription orders, so that they know themselves and it is really ridiculous, it seems to me to take care of other things, I have to understand." It has been suggested that since the awareness, in essence, is such an elusive, mysterious phenomenon, it is only a proper scientific workers, should take so long to test its nature. However, the immediate knowledge of our own consciousness is, it can be said, we are most certain knowledge, Descartes has made his meditation - certainly more than we understand the purpose of the outside world. In addition, it is the only way, the awareness that we have any sense of the rest of the world.           Refining the Attention     The achievements of scientific inquiry fill us with wonder as researchers probe the inner core of atomic nuclei, galactic clusters billions of light-years away in space, and events during the first nanoseconds after the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years away in time. But for all its marvelous success in illuminating the objective world, from the extremely minute to the extremely vast and distant in space and time, science has kept us in the dark regarding the origins, nature, and potentials of our own subjective consciousness. Progress in understanding the natural world as a whole—including its objective and subjective aspects and the relation between them—has been radically lopsided. And this has created a skewed sense of human identity and the nature of the universe.   Why has Western civilization failed to develop a science of consciousness? It is not as if the nature of consciousness, which is crucial to human identity, has not been deemed important in the Western tradition. Socrates addressed this point: "I am still unable, as the Delphic inscription orders, to know myself; and it really seems to me ridiculous to look into other things before I have understood that." Some propose that since consciousness is intrinsically such an elusive, mysterious phenomenon, it is only fitting that science should have taken so long before probing its nature. But immediate knowledge of our own consciousness is, arguably, our most certain knowledge, as Descartes proposed in his Meditations—more certain than our knowledge of the objective, external world. Moreover, it is only by way of consciousness that we have any sense of the rest of the world.   ... One pivotal element in the emergence of a new science is the development and refinement of instruments to observe and experiment with the phenomenon under investigation. Galileo's use of the telescope to examine the sun, moon and planets played a crucial role in the emergence of the science of astronomy. Likewise, Van Leeuwenhoek's use of the microscope to observe minute life forms was crucial to the emergence of modern biology. It is therefore reasonable to assume that a science of consciousness should be heralded by the development and refinement of an instrument with which states of consciousness can be observed with rigor and precision. The only instrument humanity has ever had for directly observing the mind is the mind itself, so that is what must be refined.   ... Untrained attention is habitually prone to alternating bouts of agitation and dullness, so if the mind is to be used as a reliable tool for exploring and experimenting with the states of consciousness, these dysfunctional traits need to be replaced with stability and vividness.             — B. Alan Wallace, Contemplative Science: Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge, Chapter 3 – The Study of Consciousness, East and West.                   Indexes/14