Why We Need To Expand Our Scientific Methods: Empiricism Old & New

Modern science some time ago became enamored of attempts to “be objective.” To be objective implies eliminating a personal point of view as much as possible from science. Science writing itself still reflects this trend today with awkward passive phrasing such as “it is shown” or “it was found,” rather than “I show” or “we show.”

There is, of course, in any attempt to be objective a pretense of there not being a person making the statements at issue. But there is in fact always a person, a scientist, doing the science. In this manner, science is inherently and irrevocably subjective, not objective.

Erwin Schrödinger, one of the key architects of quantum mechanics in the early part of the 20th Century, labeled this approach in 1954 the “principle of objectivation” and expressed it clearly:

By [the principle of objectivation] I mean … a certain simplification which we adopt in order to master the infinitely intricate problem of nature. Without being aware of it and without being rigorously systematic about it, we exclude the subject of cognizance from the domain of nature that we endeavor to understand. We step with our own person back into the part of an onlooker who does not belong to the world, which by this very procedure becomes an objective world.

This practice, of “being objective,” is part of what I call in this column “old empiricism.” It’s a way of doing science that pretends there isn’t inherently a person doing the science. And in this manner, the simplicity that objectivation once afforded is now outweighed by the confusion that the pretense leads to.

tambookNow that science is firmly engaged in examining consciousness itself—a shift from even a couple of decades ago when it wasn’t considered very scientific to engage in such studies—it is time to drop the pretense and face the subjective realm head on. One of the key tasks of today’s science is how to resolve, scientifically, the classic mind/body problem. The mind/body problem is all about establishing the relationship between objective/external reality and subjective/internal reality.

A good example of what I mean by old empiricism is Sean Carroll’s argument, in his 2010 book, From Eternity to Here, for entropy as the explanation for the observed arrow of time we see in the universe around us and in our daily lives. The arrow of time is considered a problem because many of our physical theories suggest that there is no inherent direction or arrow to time. So why do we remember the past and imagine the future?

Carroll explicitly leaves out any substantial discussion of the psychological flow of time or questions of consciousness or first-person empiricism in his book. He starts, rather, with the traditional “objectivist” viewpoint that has defined modern science for some time. He raises the question of the psychological passage of time as an issue in physics but then says that he’s not going to address it. But addressing the experienced passage of time is as much a physics question as anything else in physics, and is perhaps fundamental to the nature of reality and thus to physics. We can’t ignore this issue if we are to have a more complete physical understanding of the world.

My feeling is that modern science, while it has achieved tremendous gains in human knowledge, is in some ways running out of steam in our attempts to tackle the remaining “big questions,” and this is largely because of this historical commitment to “objectivation.” It’s time to expand our scientific methods to include the half of nature—subjectivity—that were explicitly left out of many areas of science in order to simplify our approach. It is time to correct that simplification by seeking a more complete account of nature that includes the subject. This expansion in our scientific perspective is what I call “new empiricism.”

“New Empiricism”

The new empiricism I’m suggesting relies on first-person experience as the primary form of empiricism, recognizing that all experimental evidence is ultimately first-person experience. Experiments using physical equipment are ultimately first-person experience because there is no data, no information, without a human apprehending such data. But simple experience independent of any physical equipment is also data available to science. All experience is data.

The second important point contained in the new empiricism I’m advocating here is the need to take primary experience more seriously than has been the case for the last couple of hundred years. Where our physical theories clash with primary level empiricism—the direct evidence of our senses—in most cases, the resolution should be to prefer the evidence of our senses over the experimental evidence.

Where exactly we decide the dispute in each potential conflict is a matter of debate. We can offer an example where the evidence of our senses is indeed misleading: judging whether the earth is flat or round. In everyday experience the earth does seem flat and yet we have no problem accepting that this is an illusion resulting from the scale of our planet compared to our human scale. When we pull back from the surface of our planet, we can see very clearly that the planet is a sphere. It didn’t even require that we get in an airplane or a spaceship to accept that the earth is round. Rather, theories and evidence gathered from various experiments convinced most people that the earth was round long before the era of mechanized flight. For example, Aristotle deduced that the Earth was round by observing that ships on the horizon disappeared hull first, then mast and sails.

Other illusions of our normal experience include the feeling that the sun orbits the earth, when it is more accurate to say that the earth orbits the sun. Another obvious illusion of our senses is our brain’s ability to fill in the blind spot in each of our eyes with the surrounding image, a phenomenon that arises from the evolutionary accident that our optical nerve goes through our retina rather than attaching to the back of the retina as in some other species. The filled-in field of our vision is entirely fabricated by the brain to match the area near the blind spot. But as we can see from the classic spot on a piece of paper experiment, this trick of our brain can be misleading.

There are a ton of illusions like this that have become apparent to modern science. It is no surprise, then, that the scientific pendulum may have swung too far toward the view that even fundamental aspects of our existence, like the passage of time, may in fact be an illusion. I’ll discuss this particular “illusion” more below.

“Old Empiricism”

Old empiricism takes the implications of mathematical theories further than empirical facts should allow. For example, the various physical theories that take time to be symmetrical (as space is symmetrical) should be re-considered with great scrutiny in the light of the direct evidence of our senses and of our experiments that time seems to pass in one direction only, and that the subjective passage of time is real.

Other than the reality of our own consciousness, there seems to be nothing else that we can know more firmly than the fact of the experienced flow of time, from moment to moment to moment.

Another good example of what I am calling here “old empiricism” comes from Huw Price’s 1996 book, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time:

This book is about the need to think about time’s puzzles from a new viewpoint, a viewpoint outside time. One of my main themes is that physicists and philosophers tend to think about time from too close up. We ourselves are creatures in time, and this is reflected in many ordinary ways of thinking and talking about the world. This makes it very difficult to think about time in an objective way, because it is always difficult to tell whether what we think we see is just a product of our vantage point.

Price’s viewpoint is perhaps an extreme point of view because he is calling explicitly for a non-empirical point of view. He realizes that everything that we know and experience is, of course, within time, and yet he calls for science to ignore this obvious and direct empirical basis for science in creating a physics that is truly a “view from no-when,” to use Price’s phrase.

Price seems to get it exactly backwards in terms of his understanding of the relationship between the world and physical laws. He states: “[W]hat is puzzling is why the physical world should be asymmetric in time at all, given that the underlying physical laws seem to be very largely symmetric.”

It should be an uncontroversial point that physical “laws” are entirely human creations, derived specifically from empirical facts and deduction, not the other way around. So it shouldn’t be at all puzzling that the physical world shows temporal asymmetry because if our physical laws are symmetric and the world is asymmetric then the physical laws are wrong or at least incomplete. The fact that someone of Price’s stature can make such statements without seeing this problem illustrates the degree to which modern science and philosophy have strayed from empiricism and common sense.

A good thought experiment for assessing whether our common sense view of a particular phenomenon is illusory in some manner is to zoom in and out on the phenomenon, literally or figuratively, just as we do in assessing whether or not the Earth is actually flat or round.

When we zoom in and out with respect to the passage of time we can see that no matter how much we zoom in or out on any particular phenomenon there is always the passing of time. The phenomena observed are always changing in some manner no matter how close up we look at, say, cellular processes, or subatomic particles; similarly, no matter how far we zoom out, at far-away galaxy clusters, for example, we still see change and thus the passing of time. So it seems that empirically we have no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the passage of time is illusory.

Price and his co-thinkers are left arguing based on indirect evidence alone as follows: that our mathematical theories that explain much of the physical phenomena we see suggest in some manner that the passage of time isn’t real because the time term (usually denoted simply “t”) can be reversed with no fundamental impact to the equations. But the direct evidence that shows the passage of time is real surely should outweigh the indirect evidence that suggests the opposite. Rather than take our mathematical theories as indirect evidence of the illusory nature of time, perhaps we should adjust our theories!

Time For A Change?

Luckily, Einstein, Price, Carroll and the many other physicists and philosophers who see time as illusory, face the opposing viewpoint from an increasing number of other scholars who see a strong need to re-establish the reality of the passage of time. Lee Smolin, a physicists with the Perimeter Institute in Canada, and Tim Maudlin, a philosopher with a strong background in physics, have both argued in recent years that conventional physics’ rendering of time as somehow illusory is a major mis-step. Smolin has made his case in two recent books, Time Reborn and, with Roberto Mangabeira Unger, The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time. Tim Maudlin has argued his case in his book, The Metaphysics Within Physics, in the chapter called “On the passing of time.”

Stephen Hawking, perhaps the most pre-eminent physicist of our time, also provides some support for the “time is real” camp. Hawking states:

In the standard positivist approach to the philosophy of science, physical theories live rent free in a Platonic heaven of ideal mathematical models. That is, a model can be arbitrarily detailed and can contain an arbitrary amount of information without affecting the universes they describe. But we are not angels, who view the universe from the outside. Instead, we and our models are both part of the universe we are describing.

These are not easy topics to get one’s head around, but I highlight the issues surrounding the nature of time because the bottomline here is pretty clear: everything we see, experience and measure shows the passage of time. Once today’s physics gets its head around that empirical reality we can start to really make headway on other thorny issues like the nature of consciousness and the mind/body problem.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 8 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

  1. Einstein didn’t say time was illusionary. He said it was relative.

    Science seeks to be objective. If that is no longer one of its primary goals, it becomes philosophy, an entirely different field.

      1. I think we’ll see the most progress when we collectively begin unifying philosophical understanding of the nature of the universe and using science as a means to bringing physical evidence in light to the mind of others. We’ll come to find that the universe is in actuality incredibly simple, because the order in which it is procured is the only order that can exist. But also, it is indeed complex in it’s understanding as there is no greater purpose than obtaining knowledge of our own existence.

    1. Hi John, Einstein said in a well-known quote: “The distinction between past, present and future is a stubbornly persistent illusion.” I and many others think this statement is inaccurate. In terms of objectivity and science and philosophy, there is no difference between science and philosophy in terms of this inherent perspective. Both seek to be objective in order find broad truths about reality. My point, however, in my article is that the pendulum has swung too far in our efforts to be objective, such that we’ve forgotten that there is of course always a person, a subject, doing science or philosophy. And we are now at the point in our scientific process that we need to recognize this explicitly and thus reach a new synthesis of objective and subjective points of view. Is that clear?

  2. it’s perhaps even a little disturbing how much we really know. i suspect studying the fundamental forces shall yield a better understanding of time.

  3. a shift?[5th paragraph] or ignorance on the part of the author? considering the history of reading and the ‘commoner’,i’d have to say ignoance on the part of the author. makes me question the criteria.

    1. Paul, the study of consciousness itself is a relatively new thing and was considered until just the last couple of decades a bit of a taboo subject for “serious” scientists. That has changed.

    1. What gives you that impression? I have a biology background (B.S.) and have read widely in science and the philosophy of science for over two decades. Did you read my article?

      1. Your whole premise is wrong there is nothing wrong with the scientific method, the results alone speak for themselves.

        That aside, science does not ignore the fact that we as humans view the world from a subjective standpoint, it is more aware of this fact than anything else and it is why it stands to reason that we try to be as objective as we possibly can. Science is powerful because it has the ability to explain the natural world and make predictions about particular outcomes given a particular set of circumstances. We can only make observations about the world around us through our own vessel of flesh and blood in addition to the instrumentation that we use to make measurements and observations, this is just a fact we have to accept. Nothing is ever going to change that fact because we cannot judge the universe from the perspective of being in a vacuum, we have to be conscious of our inherent bias and try to minimise any kind of subjectivity that only interferes with our understanding of the natural world.

        Fortunately for us the power of science is in experimentation and all it takes for an idea to be discarded is for it to fail an experiment once. Thousands of different scientists who are all subject to their own bias run experiments thousands of times that produce repeatable results that we can see again and again, results which match our theoretical understanding of a particular phenomena. In cases that an experiment does not match our presupposed expectations we consider issues in our experimental method. If we find no problem then we call into question the initial idea that we once had, and perhaps through our investigations find a new more encompassing theory that accounts for the new observation. The most obvious and well cited example being where Newton’s classical view of gravitation was overthrown by Einstein’s model of general relativity.

        The point is that despite each of us viewing the world through our own lens we can collectively as humanity agree with our theory and observations more often than not because we try and minimise any subjectivity that we may be susceptible to. We aim to be our own hardest critic and when one scientist proposes a new idea then the rest of the scientific community will do it’s best to try and knock the idea on it’s head. We have to be our own harshest critic, and it is only through being critical of each others ideas that we can reduce subjectivity and make as accurate as is humanly possible theories of the world around us.

        Perhaps when the scientific method stops producing such fantastic results should we then consider an alternate method that might get us somewhere quicker. But until that time I think I’ll stick with what you call “old empiricism” that has proven to be so successful thus far.

        1. I don’t disagree with much of what you wrote, but I’m not sure that you read my article very closely. My key point is this: we are now at a point in the progress of science that we are facing some roadblocks on very tricky issues, including the nature of consciousness and the nature of time. I suggest that we will need, in order to find good scientific answers to these problems, to find a new balance between the subjective and the objective perspective. The pendulum has swung too far to the “objective” and too much ignores the subjective, a point that springs off the Schrödinger quote at the beginning of my article. Does that make sense?

          Interestingly, I’m listening to Arthur Herman’s The Cave and the Light right now, which is a great history of the conflict and competition between Platonic and Aristotelian ideas about science, philosophy and the nature of reality. I’m calling for a return to a more Aristotelian view of science, which values observation and experience more than abstractions from experience (particularly where abstractions conflict with experience). The discussion in my article about the nature of time is a perfect example of Platonic thinking gone awry, in which abstractions about the possible nature of time are, by many thinkers today, seen as more valid guides to the true nature of time than our own experience. I’m suggesting that we need to return to a more Aristotelian fact-based and experience-based perspective on science and philosophy.

          PS. I also am a visiting scholar in psychology at UC Santa Barbara and have regular dialogues with many of my colleagues about these issues. Here’s a recent book chapter contribution by my colleague Prof. Jonathan Schooler at UCSB, the first half of which mirrors much of what I write in my article (and I’m cited in the acknowledgements): http://open-mind.net/papers/bridging-the-objective-subjective-divide-towards-a-meta-perspective-of-science-and-experience/at_download/paperPDF.

          1. My background is in physics and I am a grad student in geophysics so I can’t really comment on the problem of consciousness or philosophical interpretations but I do understand a little bit about time and science.

            The scientific method has led us to a very good understanding of time and how it works in our universe. Einsteins theory of general relativity explains how space and time are inextricably linked to one another, we have very strong experimental evidence that the theory is accurate and to this day it is our best model of space and it’s relation with time in the Universe. We have no requirement for a new model except in the situation at the centre of a black hole where the theory breaks down. As a consequence of relativity, given where an object is positioned and moving in spacetime, and in it’s relation to other objects in the Universe we know how it will experience time and can quantify this, further verifying the result by experiment. The fact that the equations have no real directionality has no implication as to whether time is real or not. The philosophical implications of time as with quantum mechanics are the issue and can be discussed until the end of the universe but they have no weight onto the actual theory itself, it certainly doesn’t require of us a new approach to the scientific method. If another model of time is required, I would be pretty shocked if it needed a new approach to the scientific method.

    2. f1bert86: I agree with you; and for Tam Hunt, with all due respect : if we need to read your article very closely as you mention, could you consider this is because is poorly written and / or wrong paraphrasing; writing is clear in answer given by f1bert86 on May 15 at 9:37 pm and the second answer given on May 15 at 11:56 pm also very clear.

  4. Stephen Hawking is just one corporate promoted physicist/mouth piece .

    Not everything experience shows the passage of time.
    When I meditate there is no measure of time. When my mind starts moving the illusion of time returns.
    “Time and space is in you you are not in them”.

    The nature of consciousness, awareness, is not a “thorny issue” -but a rose for you to discover by looking within.
    There is no the mind/body problem (except when your mind creates one)

    1. BDBinc, how is there no time when you are meditating? Does your mind stop? Does the world stop? Of course not. It may feel like time slows down for you, and surely this is true from a psychological perspective. But to suggest as you and others have that meditation provides some existence beyond time and space is, I think, to take a poetic description of certain meditative experiences as literal reality. Of course time doesn’t stop when you meditate. The world has kept on trucking along while you’re meditating. And even for you personally time doesn’t stop no matter how deep your meditative state. To exist is to be in time. What else could existence mean?

      1. Tam …You are telling/denying my state of mind when I meditate?
        How can you tell me of my experience?

        Your world is in your mind.
        Is reality in found in time or is it found( experienced) only in the NOW?

        I accept your experience is that time is not found to be illusion when you mediate.
        To exist is being alive bound by time.

        What do you know of when you do not experience it or know it ?
        Others ideas, beliefs and concepts ?

        1. BDBinc, I certainly can’t know the contents of your consciousness since I can’t know the contents of anyone’s consciousness other than my own. But I can know that as long as you’re alive and conscious you are in time and experiencing the passage of time. This is because to exist is to be in time. What is existence if not in time? I asked you if your mind stops or the world stops when you meditate. You didn’t answer but of course the answer is no neither your mind nor the world stops. Your experience of time may slow down as you reach deeper levels of meditation, but it never stops. Those teachers who describe existence beyond space and time are in my view simply taking poetic descriptions too far. We escape space and time by dying and until then we remain in their loving grasp. So, yes, we only exist in the NOW, on this I entirely agree. That’s actually my key point. So perhaps we’re just using different words to say the same thing. This is what I mean to be in time: we only live in the now and always in the now. This is the passage of time and to exist in time.

          1. You say you know a lot about my experience that means there is nothing for you to learn.
            You cannot possibly be speaking with authority on my state of consciousness or experience of time?

            Despite what your mind thinks “You are timeless being and awareness”.

            I did not say your existence is not bound by time. I suggest reality is beyond existence as a body/ mind.
            Time is an illusion.
            “Space and time is in you you are not in them.”
            You talk about your knowledge of after death, I suggest you are wrong about this. Do you remember what happens when the body dies?Or are you just telling me what you have read about the “after the body dies”.

            The now is not to be found in the passage of time.
            We clearly do not agree about time at this time:)

  5. f1bert, continuing here since we’ve run out of allowed replies. You write that that modern physics has a very good understanding of time. This is not at all true. I recommend that you read Carroll’s From Eternity to Here to get a good feel for the very many problems that the conventional understanding of time leads to, and the many remaining conundrums in the physics and metaphysics of time. Or Maudlin’s The Metaphysics Within Physics. Or Lee Smolin’s Time Reborn, or Smolin and Unger’s The Singular Universe, or Price’s Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point. Or, probably the best one: Prigogine’s The End of Certainty. His entire career in nonequilibrium thermodynamics (for which he won a Nobel Prize) was aimed at showing the conventional views on the nature of time are off-base. Here’s another piece of mine discussing these issues: http://www.independent.com/news/2011/dec/31/time-and-free-will/. My view is that the heart of the problems around our conceptions of time is the view that time is illusory, which itself stems from the block universe of relativity theory. More generally, one of the biggest problems modern physics faces is how to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, which lead to very different conclusions about the nature of reality. It is not the case that our notions of time only break down at the singularity level. Problems with the conventional view of time are pervasive. Last, studying the nature of consciousness is leading to a reassessment of our view on the nature of time bc we realize now that the nature of time and the nature of mind are inextricably linked.

    1. I’m sorry but I think you have a very poor understanding of some well understood physics, statements like “studying the nature of consciousness is leading to a reassessment of our view on the nature of time bc we realize now that the nature of time and the nature of mind are inextricably linked.” are just just complete baloney. The human mind has absolutely no bearing on the nature of time, you are confusing the fundamental laws of physics with the human experience and philosophical conceptions of time. I briefly read your link and I think this is your problem, you are extrapolating to gradiose ideas and conclusions based on a very elementary understanding of the physics.

      1. Another book suggestion for you: Christof Koch’s Confessions of a Romantic Reductionist. He is a very well-respected biophysicist, full professor for 25 years at CalTech, before leaving for the Allen Institute for the Study of the Brain a couple of years. He wrote the foreword for my book of essays exploring the ramifications of panpsychism and a process view of time. He has come out publicly as supporting panpsychism and Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory, a variety of panpsychism (even though Tononi doesn’t like to use that term). Panpsychism and process philosophy are all about process and the passage of time. Do a bit more reading and thinking on these issues and you will probably come to see my points a bit more clearly even if you don’t agree with them. Once you start looking into the scientific study of mind and time your views will probably change a bit.

        1. *There is only a theory of mind in science
          & it has been discredited.
          (Empty your cup so you can fill it Tam:)
          How does your mind define time?
          Can you find time existing outside of the mind?

          1. BDB, I’ve done a fair amount of meditation as well as psychedelic traveling, so I’m pretty familiar with the concepts you’re suggesting. After about 25 years of thinking on these issues I’ve come to the view that there is nothing outside of time. Time is the container that defines existence. So, again, we can speak poetically of things outside space and time but we shouldn’t take such descriptions literally. Mind is through and through about time. What is mind if not a process of awareness and experience? Process/change is all I mean by time. Now, words become tricky tools when we delve a bit deeper. When we go deeper into the ocean of being we realize that almost all change enfolds into Oneness, the Source, pure Spirit. But even here pure Spirit exists in time b/c how could it be the source of all things if it did not? Even Spirit changes over time. There is nothing beyond change, beyond time. This is the Buddha’s teaching that actually has been lost and adulterated by those who forgot his key message: stop grasping at permanence. There is no permanence. All things change. Even Rigpa, Source, Spirit, Brahman.

  6. Your thinking on this matter is flawed .
    It does not matter to my experience of timelessness in meditation that you have taken/done a lot of psychedelic travelling or that your mind has thought about time for 25 years. What you do has little effect on my experience.

    Awareness and experience are not the same thing.
    If all you mean by time is “process/change” awareness is free from process and change .
    Being is not confined to process and time.
    Spirit is not bound by time.
    Your mind cannot grasp the thought that “something” in can come from “nothing” (that is timeless).
    Spirit does not change -THINGS change.
    Time is an illusion and it is in you -you are not in it.
    The mind is in movement/process/change.
    You believe that time and world in your mind are outside your mind.

  7. You are entitled to your views but it is grasping to look to some timeless/changeless reality as your true identity. It’s grasping after permanence and immortality. All things change, including Spirit. We can know this from both experience and logic. Experientially, it is up to you to realize this. Logically, all we have to do is think about how the world exists in each moment. How can that which is timeless and changeless produce or interact with that which is in time? It can’t because to have interaction of any sort there must be change. Anyway, I appreciate the dialogue and I wish you well in your travels.

    1. As a lawyer you really elevated the value of logic, logic is lower than reason as logic can and is often flawed by a set belief system complete with concepts and ideas that you have spent 25yr collecting (and now you are an expert on the (changeless timeless) Spirit?).Mercury in retrograde.

      Am I really entitled to my views? are you permitting me my views did I need consent from you..
      …BUT then you add a BUT and insert your wrong idea that I am “grasping” for the timeless and changeless reality .To BE is “grasping”?
      Not really sure how you got the view I am grasping for immortality as I did not say that and its untrue (heehee this injured body and mind for eternity no thanks ).

      Since you appreciate the dialog- what is your experience of spirit ?( it is not “logic” you get to know -spirit -logic is mindstuff )Tell me about spirit?

      Have you observed pure awareness?

      You ask me “How can that which is timeless and changeless produce or interact with that which is in time?”
      There has to be something timeless and changeless to observe the change and time.
      Awareness is changeless and timeless.

      The past and future are mind made the past exists only in your mind likewise the future. Time is an illusion.
      The now is.

      1. Focusing on where we agree: you write that “the past and future are mind made, the past exists only in your mind, likewise the future.” I agree entirely and this is a key point of my piece. When I say that time is not an illusion, this is what I mean. The now is the only thing that is real and there is a constant passage of nows. This is the passage of time and what I mean when I say time is real.

        Where you’re confused (to be frank) is in arguing for a timeless reality beneath or behind our reality where time/the now is entirely real. No, that which is timeless and changeless cannot observe change and time. Observation requires the passage of time. That is literally what it means to observe. All things change, including Spirit/Source/Brahman. Change is really the only non-negotiable in reality. So why not embrace it? 🙂

        Again, thanks for the dialogue. I’ll give you the last word.

  8. There is only one now.
    There is no passage of NOWS as there are no NOWS just one NOW.
    (That’s where you are confused)

    I note you did not answer my questions on spirit.

    Awareness does not require the passage of time-why should it .
    You are confusing the observation/witness with awareness.

    Awareness is not Observation.
    (Thats where you are confused.)

    Time is an illusion.
    So no I will not embrace your learned ignorance about time .

    I will give you the illusion that you need to (or can can) give me permission to have the last word!

  9. Oh and since I have your consent.. a few more disagreements with your other ideas in your article .

    Today’s “science industry” is corrupt it is no more than a pseudo science.

    Modern Pscience has not even been able to agree on the definition of consciousness .

    Its become a who’s who with media name dropping org work for as credibility to the public.

    Theory ? No. Now days in this consensus industry cult members believe unproven theories to be more than theories( facts) especially if the idea is from a (media made ) famous name . Scientists that do not agree with politically driven ideas and propaganda are quickly discredited by the media or their once peers that want to stay in the money.

    The worry is not that they don’t know that they are not objective but most have lost the power of the reasoning mind and desire fame( publishing) and fortune( funding).

    On a positive note we agree it is time for a change… but until ALL the factors that have ruined science(corporate ego mind set) are removed … it is not enough to tell them they are not objective.
    Protecting the ego to them is more important than truth/knowledge/science. They misidentify themselves as their ideas and they fight to protect the ideas as though they will die/loose themselves.

    The belief system of the cult of pscience is used to spread corporate propaganda such as “Man made global warming” for the set up of carbon taxes & “Carbon trading” ” toxic fluoride in your water” …all manner of control systems.

    I think you have underestimated the state of pscience (misdiagnosed it as just having the objective sniffles).

    Time is an illusion.
    Without the mind where is time.

    1. I completely agree with you on the fact that science is often clouded by the scientists bias (ego-mindset). And that to many conflict “their” ideas as a part of their Identity. You don’t have to stand idle by your ideas and opinions, I often say, that’s the whole idea of being open-minded – to draw no conclusions, except, of course, you need principles (based on your present knowledge) to guide you through life or else you will stay in complete paralysis.

      Where I lost you is where you state that man-made global warming is corporate propaganda. Which Corporations benefit from reduced consumption? Which Corporations benefit from a society using their bodies as they were designed to get around instead of driving cars, planes, and boats?

      Maybe I got confused somewhere, but isn’t the whole environmentalist-idea that we all live to build better communities instead of more profit for Corporations…

      1. There is no such event happening as Al Gore’s fictional “man made global warming” if you remember which was promoted by (pseudo)science then when it was destroyed as bunk it was renamed to “climate change” campaign.

        It has nothing to do with reduced consumption, its about the corporation imposing a carbon tax on people for food and services and creating carbon trading for wall st which would creating a new profitable industry for the banksters. It is about transferring more of the energy of the poor and middle class which will be hit first and hardest with their money going to the elitist pig’s banking cartel (EPBC)= or as some prefer to call them the NWO.
        Supporting the ” man made global warming” cum “Climate change” propaganda when it would ratchet up the cost of basic goods and services -harming the poor first and moving the middle class into poverty is harmful to humanity with no change to the climate or environment. Just more money being moved from the bottom to the rich corps.

        Because you are completely ignorant (and self confessed as confused) on this issue of “Climate change” and its carbon tax hedge funds -the corporations have no cut one flight they have increased them they are not proposing a ban on flights, cars or boats no repair of any the damage they have done to the environment nor do they wish to build communities but rather destroy them when the people cannot afford the new corporate costs added to food and services imposed with a carbon tax.

        Did you not know that your govt is a corporation?

        You have not recognized that there is no environmental solutions proposed by these corporations( they have been geoengineering secretly for many years). Its a front.

        *I thought I was permitted the last word 🙂

        1. And I thought I was a Conspiracy Theorist.

          Word of advice: keep your personal attacks to someone who actually deserves it. I am not ignorant as I am open to all possible realities. I haven’t taken an absolute standpoint in anything. There are no absolutes. Everybody has an agenda, whether for good or bad. Someone will be offended by your agenda anyway you put it.

          Well, this sure was an interesting read, but clearly you are mistaking U.S.A. with the rest of the world. Although I do believe some of the politicians in my country have a hidden agenda, the Environmental Party is gaining momentum and looks to add their tally in the Parliament by 10-15 times the next election. A party that is quite open about reducing consumption and taking a few steps back in our material wealth, but spiritually declined society.

          The reason the World is msessed up is because People have been led to believe that they need all this material stuff the Corporations push on them. But then again being fooled over and over again is not the Corporations fault, it is Yours. Do you drive a car? You’re a fool. Do you travel by airplane? You’re a fool. Do you buy Coca-Cola? You’re a fool. The People Power is real whether you believe in it or not. People need to be educated on what is actually good for them, and need to be taught how to be self-reliant and produce their own Food and make their own materials and Tools to survive. The biggest threat to society is, and have always been capitalism, as it Divides People and conquers land to consume more stuff. And who is in charge of this? The People buying in to the corporates shit. Self-reliancy and Anarchy are the only concepts that will make People free again. The uniting of nations was a fraud to divide and conquer People. But don’t blame the Conqueror for conquering.Don’t blame the wolf for eating sheep, it’s in his nature. Blame ignorance. Ignorance is real. But I am not ignorant to the truth, as I take constant action to reduce my reliancy on corporations of thieves and liers.

          As for climate change, how can 97% of science on climate change be a fraud? .If you really think everybody is bought off and paid for clearly you have a very suspicious mind. I think you’re drawing the wrong conclusions. The corporations want you to buy stuff and increase your carbon footprint as that is the only way they can make money. How can they profit off of a self-reliant community. Go to war and try to submit them to their will? Maybe.

          Have you ever been to Beijing for example? The pollution is real, as is man-made climate change. If you don’t think so, you’re the ignorant really. Have you ever seen the disaster of tar sand Projects in Canada?

          Let me try to explains this to you using Your body as an example. If you pull your lungs out of your body, will you still be able to Breathe? If you clog up your arteries, what happens next?

          Mankind was made to live in harmony with nature, not trying to submit it to their will. If you really want to change the world. Speak up about it. But don’t mistake climate change for a corporate agenda, as the world is in an ecological disaster because of western lifestyle. There is no Money to be made out of People living in harmony with nature. Educate the masses and make them understand what their lifestyle choices is doing to the world.

          1. Your speech/words on what you do not understand makes it clear you are ignorant and as confused as you said you were.

            Pollution is real but “man made global warming/climate change” by Co2 emissions is not true.

            There is much poverty in the world and the last thing the poor need right now is more austerity, a decrease in their material wealth, transfer of wealth to the corporations for carbon trading, or decrease in their consumption of food and needed services this was an ignorant cruel thing to propose. The rich grow richer and the poor grow poorer.A Carbon tax and carbon trading for Wall St will increase the inequity.


            You are not listening as I am well aware of the pollution in the world and have never denied it.
            You have confused C02 with pollution, learn what C02 is. Then learn what effect is of the sun, volcanic action methane bursts, the poles shifting,cycles, the ocean and geeoengineering on the earths climate. “Man made global warming” is just not happening.
            The corporate media is using it as a political platform for a NWO V.S the environmental pollution (which is).
            You have mistaken politician Al Gore’s political campaign for science, politicians are good liars .

            I imagine you do not understand the money markets, trading and hedge funds either so you cannot understand how the corporations that hedge and implement it profit. You do not know how the privately owned fed reserve will be the ones that profit off the carbon tax they proposed. Seriously you don’t even know about carbon trading and how the corporations can profit off it! The big corporations self regulate – have you not even heard about the TPPA?

            Mankind was suppose to live in harmony with nature. But the desired and proposed outcome of the “climate change” political agenda is carbon taxing ( hit the poor the hardest with food and services )and a carbon trading business for wall street, this will increase the global inequality and imbalance.

            You will note that the corporation (your govt -environmental party) has not educated the people or told/ made the corporations clean up their pollution .There is legislation now to do that but they don’t they just talk about how they will get more followers= political power.

            The campaign targets Ignorant people who say they care about the planet earth and don’t know how to read or question the false data released by corporate media on climate are easily sucked in believing.
            Lucky there is a group of scientists refuting learned ignorance and unscientific Al Gore political propaganda.Only corporate shills, corporate owned media and the ignorant fools that believed it keep trying to breathe life into the political Al Gore lie.

          2. Obviously I didn’t write well enough to Express my opinion and what I actually mean. I am not English-speaking originally, so I apologize for that.

            We are really writing through each other. We have the same belief about the rigged system, only we write in different ways. And again I apologize for any misunderstanding.

            As for the site you refer to I have looked into it. As I said, I am an open minded person, and don’t draw any conclusions. I test and observe what happens. That’s what I did to you. I challenged you and you responded. Great. I just want to learn more to get a better perspective on what is happening to us. Confusion and open-minded-ness are not one and the same.

            Where you are wrong, is in your accusations and assumptions that I just puke up anything I’ve heard on the News, which is quite an ignorant statement as I don’t watch the News. This is called the inferiority complex; where you view yourself as superior just because you know some shit I don’t. Work on that. It won’t do you any good in the long run, as you will lose credibility.

            I HAVE looked into all things you mentioned. And I know climate change-talk is just distraction from the actual action-taking that needs to happen. And the system/politicians won’t do jack-shit about it. Unless we change it. But the site you refer to claims it is fake, but at the same time say it is real. Only they say it is a symptom and not the cause. Exactly the same as I meant. It is a symptom of the ecological disaster happening right now.

            Another point where you “assume” things is when I said the environmental party was gaining momentum. They are not in Power. The Political Right is. But they will lose the next election as they neglect the ecological disaster we are facing. They don’t believe an ecological disaster is happening or think the economy is more impotant. They just lowered taxes by 50% on the Rich, and lower it by 50$ for the poor and middleclass. In my country there is currently 8 different parties in the House. We don’t have a two-party-illusion-of-choice-system as you have in the DSA.
            The environmental party as of now have 1 representative, but looks to have 7-14 the next election. They actually try to make the corporations be held accountable for their actions and has proposed to the other parties to end oil dependency and oil-drilling immediately. I won’t elaborate on this as it is a digression of the matter at hand.

            You mistake me for a fool. What I try to do is educate People on the lie they are living. That the chasing of Money and the accumulation of possession to supposedly find happiness is a fraud to keep them in the system/Matrix or whatever you would like to Call it. I promote self-reliancy, and Learning the happiness-habit, and building a strong mind and body, through nutrition, sleep, mental and physical training to be better able to withstand stress and be happy where they are, and instead of chasing Money, a career and fame build a strong and sustainable open, inclusive and all-loving local community.
            The first thing we must do to hold the Corporations accountable, is to educate the masses on what is happening, so they can make informed Choices instead of relying on the system and the same old corrupt political parties that has been in Power since forever.

            I believe a strong empowered People is the only thing that can change anything, and to that we both agree, or am I mistaken? Maybe the system in America is unchangeable, but that’s not the case here.

            Before you misunderstand me as a fool and try to debunk everything I wrote, consider the fact that some things might have been lost in translation. 😉

            P.S. On the subject of consumption I never mentioned FOOD consumption (I thought that was obvious). And on the subject of services. What services do a self-reliant person need…

  10. Food is under the topic consumption.
    And the cost of food would be inflated by the proposed carbon tax ( or the “climate agenda” as are services most urban dwellers need). If you are rural, grow your own food and own your off grid power supply and are totally “independent” great, but most of humanity currently are not and are dependent on growers of food etc in the cities.

    No system is unchangable. The very system of control of humanity through media,mind control, “education” govt economic policies is trying to tighten and expand its control -this is change. It will fail.

    There is no “democracy” as all candidates are selected and run by the corporation. In the political system even the useless “opposition” (L) is just used to hold up the illusion of having a democracy.
    Don’t be naive, If your country has a central banking system, you pay taxes on interest on money that your govt borrows from the banksters that create it and then dictates your social policies -you have the same global cabal shadow govt as the USA/Australia/UK .



    The UN agenda 21( NWO) is what you are supporting by your beliefs and the information that you tell people in your above comments. The NWO agenda ” Climate Change” is slavery not empowerment. The UN’s catch phrase to usher in a totalitarian one world govt (NWO) is “sustainable” “sustainable” sustainable”. Be careful in your speech. Promoting the ideas of a world governed by the wretched & useless UN with their unaccountable problem creating mega corporations (TPPA) is not “sustainable” .

    {PS It is amazing that you say you don’t hear the news as you just quoted it “They just lowered taxes by 50% on the Rich, and lower it by 50$ for the poor and middleclass”. (The uber rich 1% don’t pay taxes.). ERGO you must be listening to the news.}

  11. Food is under the topic consumption.
    And the cost of food would be inflated by the proposed carbon tax ( or the “climate agenda” as are services most urban dwellers need). If you are rural, grow your own food and own your off grid power supply and are totally “independent” great, but most of humanity currently are not and are dependent on growers of food etc in the cities.

    No system is unchangable. The very system of control of humanity through media,mind control, “education” govt economic policies is trying to tighten and expand its control -this is change. It will fail.

    There is no “democracy” as all candidates are selected and run by the corporation. In the political system even the useless “opposition” (L) is just used to hold up the illusion of having a democracy.
    Don’t be naive, If your country has a central banking system, you pay taxes on interest on money that your govt borrows from the banksters that create it and then dictates your social policies -you have the same global cabal shadow govt as the USA/Australia/UK .



    The UN agenda 21( NWO) is what you are supporting by your beliefs and the information that you tell people in your above comments. The NWO agenda ” Climate Change” is slavery not empowerment. The UN’s catch phrase to usher in a totalitarian one world govt (NWO) is “sustainable” “sustainable” sustainable”. Be careful in your speech. Promoting the ideas of a world governed by the wretched & useless UN with their unaccountable problem creating mega corporations (TPPA) is not “sustainable” .

    {PS It is amazing that you say you don’t hear the news as you just quoted it “They just lowered taxes by 50% on the Rich, and lower it by 50$ for the poor and middleclass”. (The uber rich 1% don’t pay taxes.). ERGO you must be listening to the news.}

  12. The universe is a wave field device of quantum “potentials” designed to realize intention. The cosmos was “intended” and therefore a wave collapse cascade started. This continuing cascade is the cosmological “arrow of time” as witnessed. Time has a direction because the cascade has a beginning point. Sentient life was “intended” and was intended to have “intentions” within the universe device and so here we are, experiencing within our own wave collapse cascade the cosmological cascade, which is why we experience both subjective and objective “time”. Time for sentient beings is a “location” which moves forward from our individual wave collapse starting at the moment the universe device was instructed of the intention of our personal life by the DNA code at conception. Time is a coordinate system if you will, providing a self-awareness anchor “position” to the observer in a universe full of quantum potentials and cosmologically realized intention cascades.

    Or something…

  13. More info on the still undisclosed climate geoengineering – which the current model of corporate pseudoscience does not even disclose- all the while media trying to whip the “dumbed down ” population into a pseudoscience climate frenzy as a side dish to their warmongering . http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

  14. “Timelessness is beyond the illusion of time, it is not an extension of time.”

    “Time and space are in the mind only. You are not bound. Just understand yourself-that itself is eternity”

    Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj

Comments are closed.

Related Posts