Challenge to Mainstream Science

Hello my friends. So today's post will require a bit of indulgence on your part, a little contemplative inquiry on your part, and a little patience. And if you're not up to it, you might want to skip this particular post. So I'm continuing on the theme of scientific inquiry, the difference between science and scientism, and the current problems with what is referred to as mainstream science, and what is referred to by mainstream science as pseudoscience. So let's start from the beginning, the difference between science and scientism. Science is a method of exploration. It explores that which we call the observed. The method or methodology involves theory, experimentation, observation, validation, and what we call falsification. And so the scientific method essentially predicts the results of experiments. Does it have access to truth? Well, like any other method of inquiry, it brings us closer to what we think truth is. But science is not the only method of exploring what we call perceived reality, because all reality that we experience is perceived reality. What is scientism? Scientism is the belief that only science will reveal what we think the truth is, the nature of reality. So scientism is not science. Scientism is dogma, ideology, and even religion. And many of the modern day skeptics, militant skeptics, militant atheists, are in fact apostles of science. Sorry, they're apostles of scientism. Science doesn't need apostles. Science just needs the correct methodology. So having established that difference between science and scientism, since all scientific inquiry is based on observation, even though the current mainstream science believes in a philosophy called naive realism, which is that there's an objective world, independent of an observer. Such a world, of course, cannot be proved. But nevertheless, naive realism holds that there's an independent world, objective world, independent objective world, so-called independent of any observation, that if you disappeared tomorrow as a human species, then the universe would continue to look the way it looks. And to whom? Well, since there are no humans, how would the universe continue to look the way it looks if there are no humans looking? Of course, let's assume that humans disappeared and other species are looking. Bats and crocodiles and dolphins and mosquitoes and insects and underwater creatures and snakes, name it, other biological organisms are looking. They'd still be experiencing something if humans disappeared. But would the picture of the world be the look of it as we know it as humans? The answer should be obvious. It would not. It would be different for a snake or an insect with 100 eyes, etc. We've talked about that before. So naive realism is a good model for doing experiments and, of course, creating technology, including the technology that we have right now. But I think you will agree that it is, both philosophically and in scientific thinking, really untenable as a methodology to get to the truth. All science is based on observation. So it's important to ask, where is the observer? When is the observer? What is the observer? Why is the observer? And where is this observer? Where does the observer exist? What is it that observes? We call it the observer. And so now that we agree that all science is dependent on the observer, it is also important to recognize that the observer is never addressed in contemporary mainstream science. And yet science creates models of reality based on observation. So all reality as we know it is a perceptual experience. And the interpretation of all reality as we know it is not only perception, but cognition. So it's not only human perceptual experience, but human interpretation of that perceptual experience. And in all these observations, it is an assumption that the observer is embodied. So when Einstein imagined himself riding a beam of light, he imagined himself as a body-mind observing the universe while riding a beam of light. In other words, there was an embodied observer in Einstein's brain or body. Always the assumption is that the observer is embodied inside the body. So Deepak is observing right now, but actually whatever is observing you right now or whatever you are observing right now is in your body, is embodied. That's an assumption that is the basis of all observation, that the observer is a person. The problem is no embodied observer has ever been found by the scientific method, particularly you can't find an embodied observer. And science only focuses on that which is observed and frequently the method of observation, the method of experimentation, but hardly ever addresses who or what is the observer, the location of the observer and how the observer is interpreting its observations. So since there is no embodied observer to be found, we can't find it. There's no observer inside my brain looking out at the world that can be found. And as I've mentioned before, the reason the observer can't be found is it's formless. And in fact, the assumption that the body-mind is the subject of experience is an assumption that we should question. The body and the mind are of course thought to be the subject of experience in mainstream thinking, mainstream philosophy, mainstream science. The body and mind are thought to be the subject. But if you engage in contemplative inquiry and also meditation and mindfulness practice, then it becomes obvious that the mind and body are not the subject of experience, but like everything else that we observe the object of experience. How do you know you have a body? You observe it and then you see it. And then you interpret this as a human anatomy. Of course, if you engage in a little bit of contemplation, you realize that the body is a perceptual experience and the changing perceptual experience that goes along with the changing perceptual experience of the universe. And the mind is also a changing object, subtle object in awareness, appearing as sensations, feelings, thoughts, imagination, etc., but on the screen of observation and the screen is the subject of experience. And therefore, actually, in the deeper reality, the observer is awareness only, experiencing itself as the objects that we call mind, body, and universe. And in turn, those objects, mind, body, and universe, are human interpretations of human perceptions, narrow bandwidth of perceptual activity of the electromagnetic band, the womb belt. And then it's clear that there's no biological basis of consciousness, but biology is an experience in consciousness. There's no mental explanation of consciousness, the mind is an experience in consciousness. Similarly, with images, therefore, the observer is formless, otherwise we'd be able to see it. Being formless is infinite, borderless, and as I've said before, irreducible, spaceless, timeless, inconceivable, cannot be perceived. And yet, without that observer, there is no observation and nothing to be observed. Since the observer can't be found and is formless, it has to be non-local. Non-local means outside of space-time, not localized in space-time. So right now, you're listening to me. Who or what is listening? I'm speaking. Who or what is speaking? As Deepak Chopra, I am an human instrument of observation. And because I'm a conscious being, that instrument itself is imbued with the deep experience I am or I exist. The instrument itself is a modified form of the observer, but it is imbued with this feeling or this experience or this knowing that I am observing. So, who or what is observing? Let's call it, in this case, the individual observer, you, me, or whatever, a human being, for the time being. Forget the other species, it gets too complicated. So, I am observing, and the I that is observing is a non-local, irreducible, spaceless, timeless, formless, infinite observer. But it is observing through this instrument, which itself is its modification. And what is it observing? It's observing itself as this mind, this body, and this experience that we call the world. So, the universe, as we experience it, is a collective human dreamscape. And that's also the universe of other species. Within the species, the dreamscape is shared by the biological instruments we call organisms, which are actually part of the dreamscape, the fictional characters that are part of this dreamscape. And therefore, one observer, there's only one observer, can't be seen, is modifying itself into infinite modes of observation through instruments that we call biological organisms, which themselves are imbued with the notion, I exist. It's like the electrical bulb shining the light and taking the responsibility that I'm shining the light. Let's assume the bulb has been imbued with, I am, I exist. Of course, when the bulb is destroyed, then that bulb is not lighting up the room, and it is not even experiencing the room. So, the instrument is gone, but the observer is still there, the electricity, in that case, as a metaphor, is still there. There's only one observer, but it is observing itself in infinite modes through biological organism, which are its instruments of observation, and are themselves also part of the observed from the non-local domain. So, what are you? What are you? You're an observer with a particular perspective, but you're still the non-local one being, experiencing itself in infinite modes of observation and observed. And with this kind of deeper understanding, let's explore what is matter, and what are force fields, and what are atoms, and what are molecules. And this then can only be understood as scientific models for experiences, for modes of experience in human consciousness, scientific models. We say this is a matter, this is force field, whatever gravity, atoms, molecules, we give names to modes of observation, and objects experienced in that non-local consciousness. Right now, you are experiencing whatever you're experiencing. You're saying this is bullshit, this is interesting, this is true, whatever, that which is doing all this is not in space-time. But given that, and now, let's examine a few conundrums. What is matter? Well, the way we interpret matter, current science, matter is interpreted as the interaction of quantum fields. What are quantum fields? Quantum fields are fields that generate waves of information, and waves of information and energy, let's call them waves of information and energy, that can be interpreted as waves and particles. What is the collapse of the wave function? In this model, there is no collapse, there is only a snapshot of observation, and what is being observed is the self as the wave of probability that appears as a snapshot. And that snapshot as a subtle level can be called a particle, but by the time you observe it, it doesn't exist. And by the time the particle is observed, it doesn't exist as a perceptual experience, but it does exist as a memory. So, once we are clear that there is only one subject, that is the one non-local consciousness, the one non-local awareness, differentiating these modes of awareness, and that what we call science or the scientific method is a modality or a methodology that creates models of reality, but the reality itself is that which is creating the models of reality, then it becomes easier to understand a few things. The observer being non-local is not subject to birth and death. The observer being non-local is the eternal now, being experienced differently in different modes of experiencing, but falls still in the eternal now. The observer is both the source and the generator of experience, is both the source and the generator of experience, and ultimately, the subject of experience. The subject, the generator, the source of experience is the observer, but the individual observer is unique because its observations are determined by its own constructs. The scientific construct leads to the models of reality that we call Big Bang, special relativity, general relativity, quantum mechanics, all of that. That's the scientific model of observation, but then we have emotional ways of knowing, we have intuitive ways of knowing, we have imaginative ways of knowing, we have contemplative inquiry, we have self-reflection, we have modes of knowing that look at the nature of the very fundamental sensations that are also modes of knowing, sound, touch, sight, taste, and smell. By themselves, sound, sight, taste, and smell are meaningless, but as soon as we give meaning to them, then they become modes of generating experience, like music, language, poetry, and so on. And so too, the other modes of knowing, which are not only seeing, but touching, tasting, smelling, and hearing, these are modes of knowing that generate, basically, sound, and flavor, and taste, and fragrance, and thought, and feeling, and emotion, and rationality, based on the magical lies of perception. Getting a little complicated, but where we are going is that everything that you perceive as reality, including your body, and your mind, and the universe that goes along with it, is a learned phenomenon in that aspect of the non-local consciousness that we call the local observer. But the local observer is also non-local, not subject to birth and death. So, let's go back to our questions. What is the observer? The observer is a field of infinite possibilities, and the observer also is infinitely creative. The observer is in a web or matrix of synchronicity. The observer is also the source of attention and intention. When is the observer? When do you start observing? There's a very interesting objection now by modern science that if the universe of reality needs somebody to perceive it, since in evolutionary time, we've been here only 200,000 years, and the instruments of observation are recent developments, then did the universe exist before we showed up? And the answer is, it did, but without a human body mind as the instrument to observe what we're observing right now. It existed, if we take current evolutionary science to be sequential, then it existed as the modes of perception of other species that preceded us in evolution. And before the other species that preceded us, when there were no biological forms, then what was being observed? Something was being observed by the non-local self as itself. And we can give it names today, human names and human interpretations to whatever was being observed. And we give those names. We say Big Bang, singularity, cosmic inflation, blank epoch, blank time, force fields, ultimately appearance of elements, appearance of stars, appearance of planets, and on and on, appearance of biospheres. These are human constructions of human experiences happening now. What is the observer? It's all of the above. When is the observer? It doesn't exist in time. Why is there an observer? What is it observing? So first of all, what is it observing? The observer is observing itself in infinite forms and as infinite phenomena. And why is it observing? What is the cause of this experience that we call existence? That's the most difficult question. But I think we can postulate for the creative joy of expressing itself as form and phenomena in infinite ways. The infinite observer is observing itself in infinite ways. And we are that. We are that when we go beyond all the constructs that I have actually explained right now are constructs. They are clues, they are touchstones, they are pointers on the highway to ultimate truth, which is infinite possibilities. And which is you. It's a journey without destination. It's going forth and coming back. A journey from here to here. That's why the expression, be here now. Okay, maybe you found that interesting.