Ebook: COSMIC CONSCIOUSNESS OF HUMANITY - PROBLEMS OF NEW COSMOGONY

The total world human Intellect in its cosmoplanetary motion is neither derivative from nor some procreation of, the social movement (social-cultural historic development). It is a peculiar cosmoplanetary phenomenon in the organization and motion of the Universe Living Matter in its earth-adapted manifestation. Probably, this concept about the Intellect is most profoundly revealed in modern natural philosopny where the idea of anthropic principles is developed. That is, "the Universe should be such that according to it the existence of observers is assumed at some certain stage" ("strong" anthropic principle) and "what we expect to observe should be limited by the conditions of our existence as observers" ("weak" anthropic principle) (B. Carter). The adoption of such points of view suggests the idea that the Universe as the object of cosmogony is all that exists not in the absolute sense, but applied to a definite stage of cognition; more concretely, in the conceptual frames of a given cosmological theory or a model (S. Lem, 1968; V. V. Kazjutinsky, 1981,1986, etc). In this very aspect the astrophysicists' statement reads : "Although science is able to explain the world, the explanation of science itself should be given. The laws which provide the spontaneous evolution of the Universe were, probably, made in accordance with some very ciever plan" (P.Davis, 1989). Both the concept and the problems of the scientific picture of the world in light of what has been said is not a mere volume of scientific knowledge and its system expression. The system of thinking itself is only a "product" accessible to the contemporary "authorizing force" of the total scientific Intellect. It will be recalled that V. I. Vernadsky said (1931): "Science is a social education for all humans for in its basis lies the force of scientific facts and general conclusions equally obligatory for everyone. There is nothing like it in any other spiritual sphere of human life." Science, first and foremost, consists of living people all united by this common duty. Therefore it is theoretically quite unnecessary that its work's general results should be alien and not connected with the scientific work of the overwhelming majority of living thinking people who make up science. Scientists on the whole cannot accept either the religious or philosophic resolutions of the contradiction. They will look for the scientific one. The present state of things in science proves the prognosis that has been made. Indeed, there are more and more accumulated data and scientific researches which turn out to be unacceptable for today's firmly established intellectual scientific body. Nowadays the majority of thinking people who make up science defend their natural scientific body, created by themselves, selflessly preserving their own firmly established intellectual scale. Such is social-historic conformity to natural laws. What are the main ways of that "defence," that "democracy," in science? V. I. Vernadsky is quite right. The contradictions in the fundamental theoretical concepts are mostly resolved so that new sprouts, scientifically new crystallization points, might move into the philosophic, religious or simply isotherical horizons. The search for scientific resolution of the contradictions is often done in the same style but the other way round: new science is denounced as false science. In this case, the defenders invisibly dress themselves in an infallibile cloak of Belief, not science. In recent years, more and more scientific doubts have accumulated about Einstein's relative mechanics, quantum mechanics, and cosmogony. As is known, the scientific picture of the world was of great, but relative importance in planetary science until the end of the XXth century. At that time, planet studying and total ecological intrusion became so vast that the scientific picture of the world and its theoretical hypotheses turned into real