<1>
As an enthusiastic supporter of the Science Within Consciousness Paradigm, I have been concerned with the feasibility and the possible ways of exdpediting a paradigm shift.

<2>
Paradigm shifts are historical events and generally move with the kind of deliberateness with which all cultural transformations occur in history. It is not possible to force an issue. All one can do is to make sure that we do nothing to make it harder for the new paradigm to spring its roots in society.

<3>
The times seem to be ripe for a change in the way science is perceived in society and in the way scientists look at their social responsibility. While presently the world of economics and business is adjusting to the fall of the soviet empire and the apparent failure of socialism, the success of its antithesis - free market capitalism - is not at all apparent when one stops to consider the effect it has had on the elevation of the quality of life, either among the rich or the poor. Economists like Schumacher and Boulding have been warning for a number of years against studying production as an abstraction in economics separate from the social, cultural and personal aspects of the world economy.

<4>
Outside Physical Sciences and technology, the need for a novel, non-materialistic point of view has been acknowledged in books such as, "The embodied Mind" by Varella ET AL, "A New Science of Life" by Sheldrake and "How the Self Controls the Brain" by Eccles - every author an influential scientist in their own fields. Penrose, in "Shadows of the Mind" has posited that Physics as presently conceived may not be able to handle mental phenomena. Inspite of all efforts of conventional science to ignore them, para-psychological phenomena of various sort continue to be noticed and seriously studied. In view of this, it would be wrong to keep brushing the paradoxes of the present physical sciences under the carpet by concentrating on technological applications (which in themselves can not cure the present social ills). The present materialistic view of man and society is very much in need for a change.

<5>
Unfortunately, without the leadership and support of mainstream science, science within consciousness bears the risk of being relegated to the fringe region of societal consciousness often derided as the New Age movement where rational discourse vies with superstition and charlatanry for attention. To prevent this from happening, it would behoove us to keep our discourses at a level where our discourse can not be criticized as unscientific - wheather our views are readily accepted or not.

<6>
I am writing this since I have found places in the writings of some of the authors in the movement a tendency to pontificate rather than illuminate. Often axioms are introduced without due warning to the reader and without an attempt at clear justification for new axioms. Often interesting, powerful and cogent speculations are presented as established conclusions. Often the results of theoretical calculations are presented in such a way that the unwary reader sees them as experimental results - with subsequent disappointments and disillusionment. This becomes very serious when new mathematical theories are propounded which lack the rigor of conventional mathematics. As a result, these new results get quoted as mathmatically established rather than as having been propounded as a new mathematical approach. Thus we are running the risk of the kind of criticisms which, in the long run, we do not deserve.

<7>
New ideas, even when rigorously propounded, have to face strong oppositions or, even worse, have a tendency to get ignored. The radical new ideas being suggested by the proponents of Science Within Consciousness run these risks just as a matter of course. But these risks will be unduly compounded unless the propounders fail to discipline their enthusiasm and temper it with due scientific deliberation.

<8>
I personally believe that the normal logical and mathematical approach of conventional science has its limitations when dealing with science within consciousness. The "tangled hierarchy" discussed by Hofstadter (albeit in a different setting) and used by Goswami as a central theme, is here to stay. But that fact does not give us the CARTE BLANCHE to ignore conventional scientific discourse. We have to clearly inunciate the points where we veer from conventioal mathematics and logic and justify such liberties. We can not afford to clothe intuitive discourses in the garb of mathematical symbolism unless the symbolism is used with the care that mathematical discourses demand.

<9>
We are walking the fine line between conventional science and populistic absurdities. This requires care.

From: Ranan Banerji

(Ranan Banerji is retired from teaching Mathematics and Computer Science at the Saint Joseph's University, Philadelphia. He received his Ph. D. in Physics from Calcutta University in 1956 and has taught in various universities in North America and abroad including the Case Western Reserve University (where he taught for 12 years), Calcutta University, The Technical University of Vienna, Czech Technical University and the University of New Brunswick in Canada. He has published Books and many articles in the areas of Upper Atmospheric Physics, Information Theory, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence. He is a fellow of the American Association for Artificial Intelligence).

e-mail <rbanerji@mailhost.sju.edu>