A New Science: Beyond Objects & Assumptions

The scope of scientific endeavor has been restrained by the dogmas of naive realism and materialism, and the study of experience could be the new way forward.

Last week Bernardo Kastrup managed to get an article on quantum mechanics, which explained that philosophical idealism provided the most parsimonious interpretations to the results of experimentation in that field, published at the Scientific American blog. This is really quite a huge deal, since scientific publications, academia and practitioners have been willfully ignoring anything outside of materialism and naive realism for a long time, and have worked almost entirely from assumptions which have never been verified in any way whatsoever.

As big of a deal as that was, it will probably change very few scientist’s minds.

“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.” – Max Planck

However it was a great first step. Although only a small battle, it could mark a turning point in the trajectory of human thought.

There are those who believe that without scientific materialism and naive realism, science would be meaningless. If there is no external reality, then what is there to even study? How could any results gained from experimentation be meaningful if none were absolutely true in any way shape or form?

The issue here is the expectation that science can or does provide answers that are true in any way, shape or form. This is actually antithetical to the spirit of science, in which questioning is more fundamental than answering. It also ignores the fact that a phenomena or experience need not be true in any certain terms for it to profoundly affect the lives of humans.

If we view science, not as a quest for truth, but as a way for improving the lives of humans, than we can discard of any notion of absolutes and certainties. Then it might also follow that if we wished to improve human experiences, we focus our studies on experience itself.

Currently science asks questions about objects. It assumes that objects exist independently of an experience of them, although no such thing can be reliably illustrated, since we cannot interact with an object outside of an experience with it. In the nexus of these two intersecting dogmas, the human experience is relegated to experimental side notes.

But what if we tested experience itself? What if we studied the mental contents of the participants to see if there were certain similarities that gave rise to similar experiences? Let us make an example.

Say we wish to study a falling apple. Currently that study would be carried out by assuming that the apple, and the objects it fell relative to, are external from human experience. Given that assumption, it would also be assumed that the way to test the phenomena is to take objective measurements and then decide if the falling was an intrinsic property of apples or an intrinsic force the ephemeral ‘nature’ they fell within. Since objects have no agency, intrinsic properties are generally eschewed for intrinsic forces. God for modernists.

How could we study a falling apple without making any of these assumptions, and what would it say about the phenomena?

To do so we might gather 100 people, 50 of which believed that the apple would fall if dropped from a height, and fifty that did not, or were not sure. Next we have them observe an apple being dropped. Out of the one hundred, how many experienced the apple falling?

I chose this because it seems obvious that all 100 people would experience an apple falling. There is not a belief system in the entire world in which fruit floats. The fact that fruit falls is so highly interconnected with so many other things we expect and believe, that we cannot just pick that one belief as causative. Yet say we had a reliable control group. We have 50 believers, and then 50 people who grew up in zero gravity and were never instructed in beliefs relating to gravity in any way. Would those fifty also experience the apple falling, even in a setting where others did?

We are not able to yet answers such questions, for the simple fact that we have not been trying.

An easier thing to test might be the appearance of angels. In this regard we clearly have disparate groups whose sum of beliefs tends to support or deny the experience. It is of little surprise then that the experience seems isolated to those whose beliefs and expectations support such an outcome. Historically science has just assumed they were all hallucinating or too stupid and unscientifically trained to know better. And yet many of these individuals were impacted so greatly by a visit from a miraculous entity it changed the entire course of their lives. How is that different from a ‘real’ experience?

To be honest, I only have a rough idea of how a science based on experience would work. This is not just because I am not a trained scientist, but because there are a lack of examples to work from. It is such a different way of viewing science that there are not concepts or terms available to clarify with. It would be like asking Wagner to describe how rock and roll could possibly function, before there was rock and roll. And yet Wagner’s musical influence is a direct part of the musical heritage that gave birth to rock music. I may not be able to describe in great detail the workings of a science of experience, but I hope my work suggests future adaptations and evolution.

It would be my hope that reading this might implore a few scientists to experiment in this way. However my own experiences tend to support the idea that they will instead respond with reactionary argumentation and ridicule, rather than testing. Can you tell me, is this an intrinsic property of me, of scientists, a force of nature…or am I just experiencing what I pretty much already expect and believe?


10 thoughts on “A New Science: Beyond Objects & Assumptions

      1. No, just a layperson who’s aware of the fast-unravelling materialistic view of reality–and the idea of observational objectivity–especially in light of recent discoveries in quantum mechanics.

        Liked by 1 person

  1. Actually, Thomas Campbell’s My Big TOE does just that. It scientifically explains and unites classical physics and quantum physics, but goes further by explaining consciousness, telepathy, psi-phenomenon, remote viewing, etc., as well as metaphysics and philosophy. He really has nailed it in my opinion, but as I’ve said before, he is being completely ignored. His theory is over 15 years old now, but he is currently working on the “hard” science experiments which will actually prove his theory. He is not asking anyone to “believe” anything. He is a hard core scientist (not a materialist though) and believes in the scientific method. The man is like Spock, completely rational and logical even though he asserts that our physical material reality is just a hallucination and that consciousness is the primary stuff of the universe. It’s a compelling argument, but it is complex and can’t be explained in a sound bite. You have to read the book.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. But isn’t that how your own views of reality and theories have been nurtured and grow, by reading and consuming ideas and knowledge in order to expand on your own base? Surely your world view has been informed by reading and absorbing the ideas of great writers, as well as poets, artists, musicians, philosophers…. and just interacting with everyday people. We don’t grow a coherent understanding of the world in a vacuum. Steven King once said (in a book I read which I can’t remember the name of now, and which I am paraphrasing) : “to be a good writer you have to read, read…. read.” Yes, there is a difference between direct, primary perception and attaining knowledge thru books, but if you never consume “good” ideas thru “good” writing, then to me it’s like not feeding your body “good” nutrition. They are both essential for building a strong mind and body….. in my humble opinion.


      2. I agree, but this guy is not my ahead. I understand he is not a materialist, but he is not free of it. I do not put my time into people who talk about levels of consciousness. No offense to you, but I just do not.


  2. The universe is finite and temporal if only for the Big Bang. The Zero Energy Universe Hypothesis means that if you ad up all the positive and negative energy in the universe together then the sum is zero. This means it took no energy to create.
    So with a universe of zero net energy that is also finite and temporal there is an overriding remaining question; What was there before material reality?
    Material reality refers to matter, energy, space and linear time, and before the Big Bang there was no material reality but there was nonlinear time. The quantum field and photon exchanges determined in nonlinear time as the result of light being the exchange particle of the electromagnetic force.
    So the only thing we know for sure that exists in both material and nonmaterial reality is nonlinear time!
    This all means that materialist religions and materialist sciences both have it wrong because they do not recognize their boundaries and so they are always in conflict. Science needs to focus on material reality, and religion the nonmaterial reality!
    The Buddhists and Hindu made these distinctions thousands of years ago without our modern insight So!


    1. I have hesitated to reply to this comment because I find it problematic. Although I think it illustrates a greater knowledge of non-materialism than the average person possesses, and comes from a motivation to go further, it is still imbued with many materialist premises. This is a not a condemnation, as it took me almost twenty years to break entirely free of materialism after I first started trying. It is truly difficult, since all accepted terms and concepts somehow refer back to materialism. Rather than trying to ‘correct’ you, which is not a very constructive habit, I commend you and going further than most and am excited for the journey further that lies ahead if you continue to explore along these lines. Thank you for taking so much time to share your thoughts and ideas on this piece and the related ideas. I deeply appreciate your vigor and support. Much love!

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s