Omniscience is a very advanced thing. It does not comport to human ideas of it. Omniscience occurs at such a radical level that it doesn't mnifest as human knowledge, such as knowing the future or past, because future and past are imaginary.

It's not an issue of physics. It's an issue of metaphysics and interpretation.
No data nor scientific experiment is enough to tell you how to interpret or make sense of the data. So this issue is not about data or knowing physics. No amount of doing of physics can tell you how to properly make sense of it.
Scientists are not interested in metaphysics. They just want to collect data. So it becomes impossible to get them to question their latent metaphysical assumptions.
You can't get a man to understand a thing he isn't interested in or sees no value in. Scientists do not see value in metaphysical inquiry because they assume reality just is material. If scientists were interested in such questions they wouldn't be scientists, they would philosophers and mystics. Their commitment to science makes it impossible for them to understand ultimate reality.
It's a catch-22.

Political narcissism.
How fitting for narcissists.
The core problem with democracy is that it means the biggest egos cannot dominate the field. Of course the biggest egos do not like such a system and feel the need to burn it down. Democracy is the system our ancestors invented to curb massive narcissists. But today narcissism is in vogue. People have forgotten what it's like to be ruled by a corrupt massive narcissist. It's not as cool as it sounds. Never was.

You're missing the point. Everything is a hallucination, whether you are on a psychedelic or not. The psychedelic just makes it more obvious.

@Sincerity Good.
Don't try to grasp Nothing with mind. To get it requires week long concentration retreats where you just sit and don't think. Buddha-style. This is where Buddhism is actually useful.

No.
You can grasp God. You can also realize Nothingness in deeper ways.
But even as you grasp it, what's grasped is that it's a Mystery.
Infinity is Undefined. I've spoken about this before on my blog.
Consciousness has this irreducible ineffable quality to it which is the consequence of the finiteness of knowability.
You need to question, What does it really mean to know anything? What are the limits of knowing? But understanding that there exists a deeper level than knowing.

De-constructing “The Myth of Science – Part 3”  
As with Parts 1-2, the speaker mixes (i) sound but familiar philosophy-of-science insights with (ii) over-extensions and (iii) outright errors.  For easy navigation this critique is broken into eight sections:
────────────────────────────────────────  
A.  Executive summary  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Part 3 reiterates that (a) observation is theory-laden, (b) hard/soft-science boundaries are conventional, (c) funding and professional incentives bias research, and (d) sciences continually replace old models.  All of that is mainstream (Duhem, Hanson, Kuhn, Merton).  The lecture then leaps to claims that (1) every scientific statement is “99 % belief,” (2) all past or future science equals “one fibre in an infinite carpet,” (3) consciousness, ghosts, telepathy, mystical immortality etc. are already vindicated if one “just tries the method,” and (4) science kills more people than religion.  These steps rely on category errors (epistemic vs. ontic infinity), cherry-picking (Semmelweis, opioids), ad-hoc immunising strategies, and a blanket psychologising of dissent (“your mind is fragile”).  The result is again a partial caricature: it exaggerates genuine fallibilism into radical relativism, ignoring well-known correctives (model comparison, prediction-markets, meta-analysis, preregistration, causal inference, Bayesian confirmational holism).
────────────────────────────────────────  
B.  Where Part 3 is basically correct  
────────────────────────────────────────  
1.  Language influences theory construction (Bloor 1991; Hacking 1999).  
2.  No sharp dichotomy hard v. soft sciences; explanatory ideals differ by discipline (Cartwright 1983; Sober 1988).  
3.  Scientific models are maps, not territories.  Scientists can mistake mathematical convenience for ontology (Van Fraassen 1980).  
4.  Institutions shape research agendas; prevailing paradigms can ignore “anomalies” (Kuhn 1962; Ioannidis 2005).  
────────────────────────────────────────  
C.  Recurring rhetorical tactics  
────────────────────────────────────────  
•  Immunisation:  Any objection is “ego-defence” or “failure to try the method.”  
•  Slippery conflation:  “Some scientists misuse funding ⇒ science per se is corrupt.”  
•  Anecdotal amplification:  Semmelweis, opioids, nucleonic engineers ⇒ “science kills more than religion.”  
•  Undefined shifting of terms (“infinite,” “immortality,” “direct consciousness”).  
•  Proof by personal contemplation:  Invitation to bypass collective checks.  
────────────────────────────────────────  
D.  Principal errors and fallacies unique to Part 3  
────────────────────────────────────────  
1.  “Map/territory” over-extension.  
   – Correct: predictive models are not reality.  
   – Fallacy: therefore any claim about territory (e.g. galaxies, DNA) is “as imaginary as unicorns.”  Map-dependence does not entail ontological parity (Putnam 1981; Ladyman & Ross 2007).  
2.  Subjectivity absolutised.  
   – He equates “all data are mediated by consciousness” with “reality is only consciousness” (fallacy of composition).  Methodological solipsism does not follow (Dennett 1991).  
3.  Black-hole proof and burden-shift.  
   – Claim: ghosts or coffee-table metamorphosis can be proven only by high-dose Salvia.  
   – Faults: (a) no independent pre/post measurement; (b) method cannot discriminate self-deception, expectancy, confabulation; (c) defines validity so narrowly that it is unfalsifiable (Boudry’s “evidential black hole,” 2013).  
4.  Historical mis-comparisons.  
   – Statement that “science kills more than religion” ignores population scaling, average life-expectancy doubling, and that germ theory, vaccines and sanitation (science) have prevented ~1 billion premature deaths (Roser 2019).  
5.  Infinity and incompleteness again.  
   – Gödel shows formal systems cannot prove all *arithmetical* truths.  It does not imply “no finite method can access any aspect of an infinite reality.”  Quantum field renormalisation and cosmological constraints illustrate finite predictors about candidate infinitudes.  
6.  Internal contradiction:  
   – Speaker warns listeners not to mistake maps for territory, yet asserts that future science “will recognise love as fundamental” – another map projection offered without operational criterion.  
────────────────────────────────────────  
E.  Section-ordered fact checking  
────────────────────────────────────────  
00:10  “Demystifying is a bias.”  
   →  Demystification (seeking causal explanation) is a heuristic, not a metaphysical axiom.  Pragmatic pluralism already allows irreducible stochasticity (e.g. quantum collapse).  
08:30  “Science is 99 % belief.”  
   →  Surveys of method-checking show ~45 % of life-science articles provide raw data; 65 % share code; 25 % replicate independently (Nature Meta-Research 2020).  So authority-based uptake is real but empirically measurable, not total.  
14:00  “Modern medicine is in the Dark Ages.”  
   – Cardio-vascular mortality down 70 % since 1970, childhood cancer survival ≥80 %, HIV → chronic.  Failures (opioids, SSRIs inflation) exist but represent measurable minority of interventions (GBD 2020).  
21:00  “Brain and perception loop makes all reality hallucination.”  
   – Conflates “construction” with “fiction.”  Predictive-processing models deliver verifiable illusions (Rubin 2020) yet still anchor on inter-subjective invariants (Friston’s free-energy principle).  
29:00  “Hard vs soft science myth; atoms are imaginary.”  
   – Atom ontology is debated (structural realism vs. entity realism), but atomic theory yields nanofabrication, scanning-tunnelling microscopy, BEC imaging.  Pragmatic success does not grant final truth yet falsifies ‘purely imaginary’ charge.  
45:00  “Big Bang model is deeply flawed.”  
   – 13 free parameters predict CMB anisotropy, nucleosynthesis ratios, baryon-acoustic oscillations (Planck collaboration 2020).  Model may be incomplete (inflation, dark matter), not “deeply wrong.”  
57:00  “Religion and mysticism will unify with science in 100–200 yrs.”  
   – Possible, but the claim is speculative.  Should be marked conjecture, not forecast.  
─────────  
F.  Cross-episode inconsistencies  
─────────  
•  Part 1: “Science is 99 % interpretation.”  
   Part 3: “Science is 99 % belief.”  Two different numerators.  
•  Part 2: Appeals to physicist quotes as authorities.  
   Part 3: All authority is circular; quotes lose force.  
•  Part 2: Human cognitive development Yellow/Turquoise will understand critique.  
   Part 3: Even future Nobel laureates will only ever know “one carpet fibre.”   
─────────  
G.  A balanced “post-positivist” view  
─────────  
1.  Accept that observation is theory-laden and that underdetermination is real.  
2.  Reject algorithmic certainty; adopt probabilistic inference (Bayesian, error statistics).  
3.  Keep inter-subjective checkpoints (pre-registration, adversarial collaboration).  
4.  Recognise pluralistic but *rankable* virtues: prediction, consilience, coherence, fertility.  
5.  Distinguish experiential transformation (mystical states) from public-criteria knowledge; treat the former as *complement*, not rival, to explanatory science.  
─────────  
H.  Compact reading list (all < 300 pp)  
─────────  
•  Ian Hacking, *Representing and Intervening* (1983) – map/territory without realism collapse.  
•  Nancy Cartwright, *How the Laws of Physics Lie* (1983) – limited-scope models.  
•  Bas van Fraassen, *The Empirical Stance* (2002) – constructive empiricism vs. idealism.  
•  Helen Longino, *Studying Human Behavior* (2013) – soft-science methodology analysis.  
•  Susan Haack, *Defending Science – Within Reason* (2003) – middle path between scientism & cynicism.  
•  Boudry & Pigliucci (eds.), *Philosophy of Pseudoscience* (2013) – demarcation without absolutism.  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Bottom line  
────────────────────────────────────────  
Part 3 again succeeds as a spur to meta-scientific reflection: language matters, models are not reality, institutions bias research, and future paradigm shifts are likely.  It fails as a replacement epistemology because it (i) treats every limitation as fatal, (ii) makes untestable private-experience claims the final court of appeal, and (iii) pathologises critical push-back.  A rigorous, self-correcting practice can keep all his *valid* warnings while discarding the sweeping relativism and one-sided blame.

Below is a structured, point-by-point critique of “De-constructing the Myth of Science – Part 1”.  I break the analysis into seven sections so you can quickly locate issues that matter most to you:
A.  Executive summary (what is basically sound, what is dubious)  
B.  Rhetorical framing techniques the lecturer uses  
C.  Content-level strengths (where he is broadly correct)  
D.  Content-level problems (key errors, omissions, fallacies)  
E.  Section-by-section fact-checking & clarifications  
F.  Representative quotations with commentary  
G.  Suggestions for anyone who wants a serious study plan on philosophy of science  
Because many of the lecturer’s points come from legitimate philosophers (Quine, Feyerabend, Kuhn, Lakatos, Wittgenstein, Carnap, Putnam, van Fraassen, et al.), I will cite those sources in brackets so you can see what is mainstream, what is fringe, and what is idiosyncratic.  Where appropriate I link to peer-reviewed literature or primary texts.
────────────────────────────────────────
A.  EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  Mostly sound:
   •  Science is culturally embedded and historically contingent.  
   •  There is no single, simple, algorithmic “Scientific Method.”  
   •  All observation is theory-laden (Quine, Hanson).  
   •  Underdetermination and holism are genuine epistemic issues.  
   •  Most lay people (and many working scientists) hold naïve, “spread-sheet” pictures of how data and theory relate.  
   •  Feyerabend’s warning that any rule can be broken in special contexts is worth remembering.  
2.  Partly true but overstated or misleading:
   •  “Science is 99 % interpretation.”  
     → That depends on discipline and on what counts as “interpretation.” Genomics, satellite geodesy or particle physics are far more measurement-heavy than, say, evolutionary psychology.  
   •  “Any statement can be held true come what may” (Quine).  
     → Quine’s point is logical, not psychological: in principle a web of belief can be rescued by ad-hoc moves; in practice such rescuing incurs real penalties (loss of predictive power, complexity-costs, Kuhn-loss).  
   •  “Scientists have blind faith in the method.”  
     → Some do.  Funding agencies, peer review, replication crises, preregistration, and data-sharing norms show that many do not.  
   •  “There is no clear boundary between science and pseudoscience.”  
     → Border cases exist (chronic Lyme, cold fusion, ESP).  Still, several demarcation criteria with decent predictive track records exist (falsifiability, consilience, reproducibility, avoidance of immunizing stratagems, methodological naturalism).  They are imperfect, not nonexistent.  
3.  Largely wrong or unsupported:
   •  Claim that the impossibility of a single master-method implies science and witchcraft are epistemically on a par.  
   •  Claim that object permanence is “un-empirical” and requires metaphysical faith.  (Hundreds of controlled infant-psychology studies operationalize object permanence; the construct is testable and graded.)  
   •  Treatment of “materialism” as if it were a dogma rather than a defeasible research stance (Cartwright 1999, Ladyman & Ross 2007).  
   •  Assertion that “history shows science is full of corruption comparable to the church.”  Needs documentation: science certainly shows bias, fraud, p-hacking, but the frequency, detection rate, and correction cycle are empirically measurable and dramatically different from medieval ecclesial authority structures.  
   •  Syllogism “We cannot prove the method with the method ⇒ the method is faith-based.”  This is a confusion between deductive proof and abductive, self-correcting justification.  All rule-following enterprises face this (Goodman’s paradox, Wittgenstein’s regress).  Practically, coherence, predictive success, and technological fruitfulness count as non-circular warrant.  
────────────────────────────────────────
B.  RHETORICAL FRAMING
────────────────────────────────────────
The lecturer announces that the material is:
   •  “Advanced,” “dangerous,” and “threatening” – front-loading blame on the audience if they disagree (“You are just closed-minded”).  
   •  “Not anti-science” yet devotes 95 % of talk to negative cases; positives are waved away as “obvious.”  
   •  “Will cause existential crisis” – combining fear appeal with flattery (“only a tiny elite can understand”).  
This is an inoculation / mystique strategy:  it makes refutation look like defensive resistance rather than reasoned critique (see McGuire 1961 on Inoculation Theory).
────────────────────────────────────────
C.  WHERE HE IS BROADLY RIGHT
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  No “cookie-cutter” scientific method (Chalmers 2013).  
2.  Underdetermination and holism (Quine, Duhem).  
3.  Theory-laden observation (Hanson 1958; Kuhn 1962).  
4.  Science is an institution embedded in funding, politics, language.  
5.  Many scientists are trained to “solve puzzles,” not to do meta-science.  (Ioannidis 2005; Nosek et al. 2015).  
────────────────────────────────────────
D.  PRINCIPAL ERRORS & FALLACIES
────────────────────────────────────────
1.  “If a method cannot deliver absolute, self-justifying proof, it is mere faith.”  
    →  Category mistake.  Science is inductive and probabilistic; its warrant is comparative and pragmatic, not Cartesian certainty.  Demanding apodictic proof is a sceptical “fallacy of the perfect solution.”  
2.  False dichotomy between “one monolithic algorithm” and “anything goes.”  
    →  Contemporary methodology is pluralistic but constrained: measurement theory, statistics, model-selection criteria (AIC, BIC), inter-subjective verifiability, robustness checks, peer scrutiny, etc.  The constraints are fuzzy, revisable, but they are constraints.  
3.  Straw-man portrayal of practicing scientists.  
    •  Textbooks certainly oversimplify, but few active researchers believe a pop-science myth of a single infallible method.  
    •  Philosophy of science is compulsory or at least elective in most doctoral programs in physics, biology, psychology.  (E.g., Stanford’s PHIL 263A, MIT’s STS 042J.)  
4.  Conflation of methodological naturalism with metaphysical materialism.  
    •  The rule “limit causal explanations to natural processes” is an operational heuristic, not a priori dogma about ontology.  
5.  Slippery-slope from “methodological fallibility” to “witchcraft may be equally valid.”  
    •  Multiple controlled tests of “witchcraft” claims (Tanzanian albino killings, Zuni witch-doctor trials, Rhine ESP protocols) find no predictive power above chance.  Most traditions are non-cumulative, resistant to disconfirmation, and lack inter-subjective calibration.  By contrast, e.g., medicinal chemistry is cumulative and platform-neutral (you can reproduce an assay in Mumbai or Toronto).  
6.  Misuse of historical episodes.  
   •  Church officials rejected Galileo’s telescope partly on scriptural and partly on technical grounds (instrument aberrations were real worries in 1610).  Yet within 30 years telescopic astronomy displaced the Aristotelian cosmos.  The example shows correction, not permanent blindness.  
   •  Einstein absolutely did *not* abandon “logical law of the excluded middle.”  Quantum logicians (Birkhoff & von Neumann 1936) explored that after Einstein and Bohr debated, but mainstream formalisms kept classical logic in the metalanguage.  
7.  Numerical overstatement (“science is 99 % interpretation”).  
    →  Neutron lifetime is reported with nine significant digits; atmospheric CO₂ is measured hourly worldwide; gene sequences are read trillions of times per week.  Interpretation is crucial, but the measurement load is enormous and logically independent of post-hoc story-telling.  
8.  Internal contradiction:  
    •  Lecturer says “all categories (e.g., lemon) are arbitrary,” yet later appeals to specific categories to illustrate corruption, fraud, Nobel prizes, etc.  If categories are purely arbitrary, corruption cannot be objectively identified either.  
9.  Citation bias.  
    •  Quotes Feyerabend and Quine correctly, but ignores replies by Lakatos, Laudan, Kitcher, Sober, Stanford, Okasha, Godfrey-Smith, who show ways to soften holism and underdetermination.  
────────────────────────────────────────
E.  SECTION-BY-SECTION FACT-CHECK / CLARIFICATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Below I time-order major claims (in the order they appear) and comment.
00:03–05:00  “This material could make you mentally unstable… your whole identity is science.”  
   →  Over-pathologizing disagreement; no evidence presented.  
09:15  “Science is full of corruption.”  
   →  Partial truth: fraud rate in life sciences ≈ 2 % retractions, 14 % suspect data (Fang et al. 2012).  Claim “‘full’ of corruption” lacks denominator.  
15:40  “True critiques of science come only from stages Yellow/Turquoise (Spiral Dynamics).”  
   →  Spiral Dynamics is itself contested and empirically thin.  Using it to allocate epistemic authority is question-begging.  
18:30  “If science and truth diverge, choose truth.”  
   →  Tautological. The real question is how *to know* where truth lies.  He offers no operational criterion beyond personal “contemplation.”  
24:00  “Science ignores subjective experience, therefore is biased.”  
   →  Misleading: phenomenology, qualitative methods, first-person reports exist in psychology, psychiatry, anthropology, sociology, human-computer interaction.  They are imperfect but present.  
31:00  “There is no scientific proof of an external reality or other minds.”  
   →  Kant, Russell, Strawson, Putnam agree there is no *deductive* proof.  Science uses abductive inference to the best explanation (IBE).  The lecturer elides this methodological point.  
40:00  “We start from total ignorance; can’t know which method works unless we know everything, which we don’t; therefore no method is better.”  
   →  False.  Method choice is continuously adjudicated by empirical return on investment (predictive accuracy, engineering spin-offs, cross-validation).  Perfect knowledge is not required; Bayesian model comparison works with partial data.  
58:00  “History, filmmaking, detective work—are these sciences?”  
   →  Philosophers call them ‘quasi-experimental’ or ‘historical-nomological’ sciences.  Yes, they use evidence, but they differ in reproducibility and intervention.  This is standard in methodology literature (Sober 1988; Cleland 2002).  
1:12:00  “Lemons are yellow is not a fact—it’s cultural.”  
   →  Colour categories are partly linguistic (Kay & Regier 2007) but wavelength reflection and opponent-process encoding are stable biological regularities.  Conflates semantic vagueness with empirical arbitrariness.  
1:25:00  “Science can’t test witchcraft until you do 18 years of witchcraft.”  
   →  Shifting burden of proof.  Researchers have tested hundreds of specific occult claims (astrology: Carlson 1985; intercessory prayer: Benson 2006; Ganzfeld ESP meta-analysis: Milton & Wiseman 1999).  They require no “18-year” apprenticeship to evaluate predictive success.  
1:44:00  “Psychedelics prove paranormal phenomena.”  
   →  Grof (1975), Tart (1972) report extraordinary experiences; however, double-blind expectancy-controlled studies (Studerus 2012; Griffiths 2018) show *intra-subjective* mystical states, not verifiable psi.  Anecdote ≠ controlled evidence.  
────────────────────────────────────────
F.  REPRESENTATIVE QUOTATIONS WITH COMMENTARY
────────────────────────────────────────
•  “Science is 99 % belief and authority.”  
   →  Over-correction.  Reliance on citation and credential is high, but metanalyses, preregistration, data repositories (GeneBank, PANGAEA, HEPData) let third parties recompute results without deference to authors.  
•  “Proof is always relative.”  
   →  In mathematics, “proof” is relative only to an axiom system; within ZFC, Gödel sentences excepted, proof is absolute.  In empirical science the word ‘proof’ is colloquial; better to say ‘strong corroboration’.  
•  “Logic can’t save you—anybody can justify anything logically.”  
   →  Conflates validity with soundness.  Valid arguments with false premises are possible; the remedy is empirical scrutiny, not abandoning logic.  
────────────────────────────────────────
G.  HOW TO STUDY THESE ISSUES SERIOUSLY
────────────────────────────────────────
If the lecture whetted your appetite, here is a compact road-map that covers *both* the legitimate philosophical concerns he raises and the corrective material he omits.
1.  Introductory  
    •  Godfrey-Smith, *Theory and Reality* (2003)  
    •  Ladyman & Ross, *Every Thing Must Go* (2007)  
2.  Underdetermination & Holism  
    •  Quine, “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” (1951)  
    •  Stanford, *Exceeding Our Grasp* (2006)  
3.  Methodological Pluralism & Virtues  
    •  Longino, *Science as Social Knowledge* (1990)  
    •  Chang, *Is Water H₂O?* (2012)  
    •  Cartwright & Frigg, “String Theory Under Construction” (2007)  
4.  Demarcation & Pseudoscience  
    •  Pigliucci & Boudry (eds.), *Philosophy of Pseudoscience* (2013)  
5.  Sociology / Psychology of Science  
    •  Merton, *The Sociology of Science* (1973)  
    •  Collins & Pinch, *The Golem* (1993)  
    •  Ioannidis, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” (2005)  
6.  Responses to Feyerabend & Radical Relativism  
    •  Lakatos, “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” (1970)  
    •  Laudan, *Science and Values* (1984)  
    •  Haack, *Defending Science — Within Reason* (2003)  
7.  Special topics  
    •  Sober, *Evidence and Evolution* (2008) – how historical sciences handle underdetermination  
    •  Borsboom, *Theoretical Psychology* (2022) – on theory-ladenness and measurement models  
────────────────────────────────────────
CONCLUSION
────────────────────────────────────────
Part 1 of the series is useful as a motivation to look beyond textbook caricatures of “The Scientific Method” and to grapple with deep epistemic questions.  Unfortunately the presenter:
•  Overplays the weaknesses of science while ignoring its elaborate self-correcting mechanisms,  
•  Equates “non-algorithmic” with “anything goes,”  
•  Slides from legitimate philosophical scepticism into relativism that makes witchcraft or personal epiphany epistemically on a par with controlled, cumulative, publicly checkable inquiry,  
•  Employs rhetorical inoculation that pathologizes dissent.  
If the goal is improving science rather than replacing it with private mystical insight, the remedy is not to abandon methodological discipline but to refine it — exactly what contemporary philosophy of science, metascience, and reform movements (open data, registered reports, adversarial collaborations) are doing.

The suffering a man goes through is a blessing. It's what makes you strong.
Don't wish for the easy life. The easy life is an illusion.
Love the challenging path.

Of course.
You are God. The world is your dream.

All holidays are fantasies.
Every day is a holy-day when you know God and no day is when you don't.

Every time I point out a limitation in someone's worldview or method, I am accused of trying to be better than them. It's such a trite gaslight at this point that I'm sick of hearing it.
Maybe I'm a narcissist. Or maybe I just care that you don't fall into their epistemic traps.
The disturbing thing is that I care more about your epistemology than you care about your epistemology. That's because I know what you will lose.

Even if someone is acting illogically, Being still has logic to it.
The mind can behave in all sorts of illogical ways. But the structure of ontology remains.
Greeks called it the Logos.
God's Unity is a function of logic. So logic literally holds the whole universe together.
God is Love because logic is true. If logic wasn't true God could not be Absolute Love. Absoluteness requires logic.

It's not about positive or negative. It's about Truth. In all cases what you seek is Truth, whatever it is.
Your job is simply to know and love Truth. That is the highest Good.

There is no solution. No human controls or designs evolution.
Hyper capitalism will continue until it collapses from its own contradictions and corruption. And the pain of that cannot be avoided. The solution is playing itself out in slow-motion as we speak.

I'm working on a project and I need a list of materialist assumptions about the nature of reality. This is what I have come up so far:
The fundamental substance which makes up reality is matter. Being human, means being a body. There is an external material reality apart from the consciousness of the subject who perceives it. The body/self is apart from the external material world. Consciousness is generated by the interaction of material particles in the brain. Death is a certain and unavoidable event, since consciousness is generated by the brain. The universe is split in the dichotomy subject/object. Mystical experiences are just brain states. There is a clear and definitive distinction between external material reality and inner subjective experience. This is a list of assumptions generated by Claude Ai:
Causal closure of the physical: Every physical event has only physical causes; there's no room for non-physical causation. Emergent complexity: Complex systems and properties emerge from simpler physical components and interactions without requiring non-material explanations. Scientific epistemology: Science is the most reliable method for understanding reality, with empirical evidence and testability as key criteria. Determinism or probabilistic causation: Events are determined by prior physical causes following natural laws, even if quantum mechanics introduces probabilistic elements. Evolutionary origin of mind: Consciousness evolved through natural selection as a biological adaptation with survival value. Rejection of teleology: The universe and natural processes have no inherent purpose or goal-directedness. Naturalistic ethics: Moral values are human constructs based on biological and social factors rather than transcendent principles. Mathematical/logical truths as human constructs: Even abstract mathematical and logical principles are human cognitive tools rather than transcendent realities. Uniformity of natural law: Physical laws operate consistently across time and space. Methodological reductionism: Complex phenomena are best understood by analyzing their constituent parts. What other assumptions would you add?

There are so many.
Like the assumption that reality can be understood through thinking, without state change.

Selfishness and ignorance are inherent.
It is not an evil society that created infants. It is evil infants who created society.

Having re-watched @Leo Gura Spiral Dynamics stage Turquoise video I am posting here my notes that I manually took from the video. No AI was used whatsoever. Enjoy! This is the final set of notes for the Spiral Dynamics stages.  
What is the essence of Turquoise?
Holistic Global Collectivist Self-Transcendent Once again the pendulum is swinging. It went from Yellow which was individualistic, and now it's swinging back to the collective ego which puts an emphasis on collectivism. The collectivism in Turquoise differs from the collectivism of Green which was about joining a group and serving the group identity The collectivism of Turquoise consists of manifesting the self for the benefit of existential reality. Not for your Stage Green political party! But for the benefit of existential reality. For life as a whole! The essence of Turquoise is also to experience the wholeness of existence through mind and spirit The world is seen as a single dynamic organism with its own collective mind Everything connects to everything else A lot of boundaries break down There are a lot of ecological alignments for turquoise The universe is alive and intelligent. It’s not a dumb stone cold clockwork machine Turquoise is interested in building a human community based on mystical wisdom. Cooperative action for elevating the consciousness of mankind Turquoise is a synthesis of the left and the right brain. East and West. Science and religion. Mind body spirit and heart. Turquoise takes a very big picture of what life is about. It is not about the individual of becoming rich or successful, it is not about fighting for some political cause! It is about getting all of mankind to awaken to the magnificence of existence You won't find Turquoise in government, in politics, in education, in business, in the media etc Most people have never meet a turquoise human being People at Turquoise usually become gurus, sages, teachers, leaders, visionaries, healers and clairvoyance. Usually they start their own little communities  
When does Turquoise emerge?
Turquoise emerges with the realization that Yellow has alone, no matter how much it models and understands stuff, It cannot solve the world's problems just its systemic understanding! There needs to be a community effort to work on these systemic problems that Yellow sees and that's when Turquoise emerges Turquoise emerges when Yellow starts to see that consciousness unifies everything and everyone The idea that consciousness is at the heart of every issue that Yellow tries to solve. Yellow must understand that only by changing the state of consciousness of a situation or a group of people there will be positive results. When Yellow starts to really see the limits of thinking and modelling and of reason and logic. When Yellow realizes that all the information that he has gathered so far, all his inquiries, have not led him to the ultimate answers. The ultimate answers have still not been answered at Yellow Turquoise emerges with very serious spiritual practices Turquoise is a flowering of mysticism When boundaries start to dissolve between self, other and the world. Physical boundaries With self-transcendence, with the dissolution of the ego With awareness of Maya, the dream that we are in When Yellow realises that the mind and understanding by itself doesn't bring him happiness. Yellow still suffers, is depressed and wants to transcend suffering, then Yellow starts to find a permanent solution to his unhappiness, so begins his path towards Turquoise  
Turquoise Values
Consciousness Elevating the consciousness of mankind as a whole Truth. Existential Truth, metaphysical Truth Deep metaphysical insights Metaphysics Wisdom and the wisdom of mother earth. The wisdom of nature Mysticism Non duality Spirituality God and divinity Holism Integration and synthesis Integrating all religions and science Left and right brain synthesis Honesty Transparency Radical authenticity Turquoise values being as opposed to knowing, doing and having Simplicity Flowing with nature Minimalist sustainable living Collaborative synergy Human wellness Healing on every dimension ( The physical dimension, the emotional dimension, the spiritual dimension) Exploring altered states of consciousness Intuition Channelling or direct downloads from infinite intelligence Super natural degrees of creativity Spiritual purification Awakening Transcendence Liberation Unconditional love Compassion for all Emotional mastery Presence Mindfulness Paradox Esoteric teachings Gratitude Unity Deeper and deeper levels of interconnectedness Selfless living Sacrificing the self for greater consciousness of the whole Meditation Yoga Contemplation Self-inquiry Turquoise values not knowing Humility Spontaneity Playfulness Self-amusement Turquoise tends to be light hearted Really really big picture thinking and embodiment  
How to distinguish between Turquoise and Green
Because both are communal and collectivistic pendulum wise, it is really easy to confuse between the two, so watch out! At Turquoise you start to have real mysticism whereas at Green you tend to have new-agey faddish sort of spiritual practices where you may take part in a spiritual group, you go to a Yoga class and do a little bit of meditation, or do meditation retreats here and there but it's not serious. You are doing it for like a health benefit or to calm your mind or to reduce anxiety. None of these have anything to do with real deep metaphysical meditation At Turquoise you start to have industrial grade levels of meditation and contemplation, not casual amateurism like what Green is doing. Turquoise is informed by direct non dual experiences rather than beliefs or ideas that Green got from reading a book. Green believes in a lot of things like reincarnation, a belief in Gaia, as a mother nature like design of intelligence, or belief in a soul or a belief in God! But these don't matter if you haven't directly experienced that stuff for yourself Turquoise embraces global collectivism without attacking individuality like the way Green did! With Turquoise everybody is allowed to be individualistic if they so choose. But at a same time there is a recognition of this sort of global collectivism that needs to happen Another difference is that Turquoise is conscious of the spiral and Turquoise is a spiral wizard being able to see the world from all these different perspectives in a way that Green wasn't able. Turquoise is not as triggered by social injustices as Green was. There is an acceptance and a deep understanding. The acceptance comes from a deep understanding of conflict, war, violence, greed. Green was just reacting against those unconscious characteristics , whereas Turquoise has deep existential understanding of these negative things. Turquoise is much more understanding of stage Orange. Doesn't demonize stage Orange the way Green does. Turquoise is not as political as Green, Turquoise doesn't take politics too seriously. Green loves to join its political causes, gets a little too militant to defend what Green believes in. Turquoise is a little more playful about the problems that go on socially although not ignorant. Turquoise avoids the mob mentalities that come with Green. In Turquoise there is an awareness of Ego, more mindfulness and more presence whereas Green lacks those traits. Turquoise tends to have much more emotional mastery than Green Turquoise tends to be non-reactive and detached whereas Green is very reactive and very attached Turquoise is quite effective at solving large problems whereas Green was more about getting together and protesting and complaining about stuff they don't like  
Characteristics of Turquoise
Turquoise sees the human race as a single organism, everything is connected, this is not a metaphor, you actually see the dissolution of the physical boundary between self and other A fading of artificial boundaries of ethnicity, skin colour, gender, race, nationality, bloodlines To Turquoise, his mother is as related to him as his coffee table. All boundaries start to break down Turquoise sees the world as interlinked causes and effects as interacting fields of energy For turquoise there is joint activity across groups, factions and communities Feelings and emotions come back into play Work must be meaningful to the overall health of life There's a deep trust of intuition and instinct The self is a part of a large conscious spiritual whole Non manipulative Non-ideological Non judgemental Not driven by fear or selfless selfishness Doesn't play victim Doesn't play blame games Turquoise is far beyond Green faddish spirituality, Turquoise has direct experience of its spirituality and embodies spirituality Deeper spiritual and metal capacities are awakened. New senses, new abilities that you may think that are super human now become ordinary The development of paranormal abilities Healing abilities Astral projection Remote viewing The mystical becomes the mundane for Turquoise Inspiring levels of emotional mastery Minimalist living, less is more Ecologically conscious like Green and Yellow, maybe even more so now! Being a visionary Being an inspiring leader The unification of science, technology, medicine and mysticism A really deep understanding and unification of all religion For Turquoise collective imperatives reign supreme over individual egoic needs Turquoise is engaged in business. But it's gonna be business with soul. For Turquoise there is a sense of a greater community built around spiritual embodiment Turquoise represents the sixth and the seventh chakra, the third eye and the crown chakra Turquoise actions come from selfless love and an open heart Great mental and behavioural flexibility Sexual desire is transmuted into metaphysical love Turquoise loves to deal with paradox Post rational and post material Non-linear Human centred Super natural intuition High integrity For Turquoise the universe is both impersonal and deeply personal Conscious of the miracle of life Turquoise is now an even deeper systems thinker than Yellow was For Turquoise life consists of fractals Turquoise stands in awe at the cosmic order, like stars, clouds, trees, cars, plants, animals etc For Turquoise reality can be experienced but never truly known Dissolution of the ego A movement away from gross materialism to subtle stuff A shift from the external to the internal A transcendence of morality, meaning, judgement, life and death, duality, mind, reason, science, good and evil Turquoise is finally able to have really deep honest meaningful relationships beyond the shallow and petty clinginess and neediness and materialism that came with Tier 1.  
Examples of Turquoise
Sadhguru Shunya Murti Thomas Campbell Yoda David Hawkins Ken Wilber Shinzen Young Deepak Chopra Stan Grof Osho Mooji Rupert Spira Ekchart Tolle's A new Earth book Ekchart Tolle's The Power of Now Eckhart Tolle Yogananda Martin Ball Terence McKenna Carl Jung Sri Aurobindo Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Ervin László David Loy Allan Watts Wim Hof Dalai Lama Sacha Shulgin Yoga Holotropic Breathwork The book the Holographic Universe The Akashic records Opening the third eye The penial gland Out of body experiences Samadhi experiences Paranormal abilities Clairvoyance Channels Mediums Rudolf Steiner Alternative healing systems The notion of Maya Psychedelics 5-MEO-DMT Rupert Sheldrake's morphogenetic fields Gandhi's ideas of pluralistic harmony The notion of Gaia, earth as a living system Biocentrism The Monroe institute The Esalen institute Transpersonal psychology as a field Quantum Field theory Sacred Geometry Reincarnation Opening chakras Saints Sages Mystics Prophets  
Turquoise Statistics
Less than 0.1% of the global population is at Turquoise Less than 1% of the total world influence belongs to Turquoise The style of government under Turquoise is a holistic organism! Micro-management of all life forms towards the common good in response to macro problems. It is very globalist! The purpose of this government and this society is to elevate the consciousness of all of mankind  
Spiral Dynamics vs Non-Duality
It is true that the higher you go on the spiral, the more consciousness the individual tends to exhibit, but make sure that you don't confuse stage Turquoise with strict non-duality. You can be in a non-dual state and not be at stage Turquoise Don't confuse Turquoise with Enlightenment or Non-Duality If someone is Enlightened, doesn't mean that he is Turquoise, and if someone is Turquoise, this doesn't mean that he is enlightened.  
The mantras of Turquoise
Everything is one We are all God You are already enlightened Everything is perfect and at the same time everything is evolving To see a world in a grain of sand and heaven in a wild flower The kingdom of heaven is within Forgive them father for they know not what they do Life is a dream What triggers Turquoise?
Not that much triggers Turquoise. Turquoise is acceptant and quite understanding of how Maya works, how ignorance works. Turquoise has developed quite a high degree of emotional maturity and mastery. The insanity of the world The status quo Myopia, the limited vision that people have Materialistic corruption Profits over truth and spirit Dogmatic scientism and rationalism Ecological dysfunction The collective suffering of mankind ( All the suffering that mankind is facing is largely self-inflicted) Little petty mundane survival stuff Limitations of Turquoise
Turquoise is so sophisticated that it tends to not have any big limitations as the lower stages have Too mystical and too spiritual to the point of dropping all concerns for earthly problems Turquoise people tend to live in a bubble. In their own reality Developing a Guru Cult like complex For Turquoise life can become sort of meaningless Turquoise can deny the importance of the political issues Turquoise can assume that other people are just as capable of awakening as they are Turquoise can develop a mega tribe and in worst case scenarios it can clash with another Turquoise mega tribe Turquoise can be stuck on shallow states of enlightenment and non-dual experiences Warning
There tends to be an over idealization of Turquoise. A big mistake would be to think of Turquoise as this perfect, Jesus like human being. Turquoise can make mistakes and behave wrongly just like anyone else. Turquoise doesn't mean that someone is a literal saint. Turquoise doesn't make you moral or good Turquoise doesn't make you special. Don't make the mistake of thinking that once you reach Turquoise your life will be perfect Turquoise doesn't make you enlightened Turquoise will not make you immune to false beliefs or to lower perspectives or cultural biases Turquoise doesn't make you immune to dangerous social ideas. Turquoise people are also capable of holding dangerous/unconscious political opinions What works well in Turquoise's head doesn't mean it will also work well in reality Turquoise is not immune of hurting others Turquoise is not immune of sexual cravings Turquoise is not immune to addictions But generally Turquoise will have transcended a lot of these unwanted addictions and behaviours otherwise he would have had it very difficult for him to reach Turquoise  
How to transcend Turquoise?
You don't have to transcend Turquoise. You reached the summit of the spiral! Your focus should be on how to embody Turquoise as deeply as possible! Once at Turquoise you should really focus on exploring non-duality to its fullest  
How to embody Turquoise?
Make sure you have a hardcore, industrial-grade spiritual practice going whether that's meditation, yoga, self-inquiry, contemplation or whatever else Contemplate everything! Don't just contemplate things like What am I? or Who I am? Or what reality is? Contemplate the little things like what is language ? What are relationships ? What is sexuality? What is politics? What is government ? Contemplate all the things! Embody unconditional love Long solo retreats Spiritual purification work of various kinds Shadow work Do psychedelics especially 5 MEO DMT Join or start some kind of spiritual community Read Turquoise books Meet Turquoise sages face to face Study many religions. Make sure your mystical practices aren't coming from just one school or tradition Study cutting edge science Study non-dual theory deeply Open your chakras Transmute your sexual energy Learn alternative healing techniques To really master Turquoise make sure you go back and master all the lower stages. Go all the way back to Purple and ask yourself, what am I missing from Purple or from Red or from Blue or from Orange or from Green or Yellow, what aspect of Blue am I missing or that I haven't fully embodied? Master all the lower stages. There is a lot of depth at every stage Keep watching Actualized.org

Orange is much more than making money. It is setting your own goals, rationality, science, seeing limitations of dogma, fitness and health, dating and attraction, democracy vs theocracy, secularism, financial responsibility, self-education, etc.

@integral You want to call everything a feeling. I don't. So we will never agree.
A tree is not a feeling. I don't know any clearer way to explain it.
Exercise:
In your direct experience locate what is a feeling. Then locate what is not a feeling. Observe the difference between the two. Notice that non-feeling exists.

The reality is that getting joy from just sitting around and doing nothing requires insane levels of consciousness and development.
And people who have pent up desires to burn through will not be able to do it until they burn through those desires first.
For me, the joy doesn't come from just sitting and doing nothing mindlessly, the joy comes from a deep consciousness of existential matters about reality. But you could even call that a kind of intellectual seeking.
If you want to literally have joy from doing nothing, that will not be possible without some serious awakenings and some serious ego-death. The ego is never happy just doing nothing. Especially if you have a decent sense of ambition, which you do.
For most people to be happy they need to be working on things which give their life meaning, whether that's business, family, gym, travel, or whatever.
Of course the thrill of success will be stronger than the mild joy of just be present. The thrill of achievement is a dopamine hit. The joy of presence is a serotinin hit. They are two different reward pathways. Dopmine hits are stronger but they are also always fleeting.
So there's a tradeoff.

The point is to see that you are creating those things.
Meaning exists as something your mind creates. Otherwise it doesn't.
It's like you are given a canvas with an elephant drawn on it and told that the elephant only exists because someone drew it. Otherwise there is no elephant. And you reply, "But elephants aren't real then? Elephants are a hoax?! Why would you want a life without elephants?"

The search for meaning is the search for consciousness of yourself as God.
Last night I sat for an hour on my couch just stunned by my consciousness of God. This is a level of profoundity nobody understands.
You are God and you just sitting there is infinitely profound, if only you develop enough understanding to inferface with it.
It's not even about truth, it's about being God. Being God is more meaningful than any human meaning. Nothing has meaning next to God. Your experience of reality becomes divine and metaphysical, not human. That's what I suffer for. Suffering is just the ticket price to God's Disneyland.

Formal technique is important to not waste your retreat lost in monkey mind.
You need 4-5 days of formal just to get your mind into a good space. Then you could ease off on it and experiment.