Thought this may be of interest to some.

http://www.explorejourna...%2814%2900116-5/fulltext

One of the reasons I enjoy this site so much is because I probably would have never found this otherwise. Very interesting article. I also like this:



Not necessarily dismissing a materialist view of science, but rather expanding upon. A good way of looking at it.

This is a pretty mighty claim, but I only say that because I'm currently reading a book about the development of scientific thought in the 17th century:

Oddly enough I was taught this lesson harshly by experiments with remote viewing before I even started using psychedelics. I was a materialist atheist for years; I saw nothing else than what our bodies were composed of and what our physics could explain.

But after seeing something like remote viewing work perfectly, first hand, I knew there was something bigger. It might still be able to be explained by this post-materialist science of course, but there appears to be something outside of what we can experience as existence.

Thanks for the manifesto.

So I'm skeptical... For one thing they don't cite any sources for their 'claims', they just say it was if we are supposed to take it at face value or already know what they are talking about. Another thing is science is materialistic in nature. I mean, it's only about observable things that are repeatable, right?

I'm not instantly dismissing it, but I find it hard to take them even remotely seriously with no sources at the very least... Anyone else share this view, or if not have the sources to the information they claim that is not just one-off anecdotal evidence. To be considered "scientific" it must both be observable and repeatable...

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade...

Not really. What's the scientific definition of matter? E.g. a photon is a massless particle and therefore not considered matter. Observable yes, matter no.

and probable.
human knowledge, as we know it, has been derived from the probable and improbable.

The higgs boson wasnt observable until they..observed it..however prior to the discovery it wasnt considered pseudoscience.

I'm not, and neither is anyone else, calling any of this psudo-science. I'd just like to see them cite their sources before I can even start to take them seriously... Is that really too much to ask of these, seemingly nice, people?

It's a manifesto, that's probably why they didn't include references. You can still read their books, watch their lectures on Youtube, search their papers @Google scholar and read them @libgen.