> Udo, this is an honest, sincere question because I really didn't expect this strict of a response to my words from the community I pointed it out because I w

> Udo, this is an honest, sincere question because I really didn't expect this strict of a response to my words from the community I pointed it out because I was surprised to see it had been added to the post when we actually had an exchange in order to clarify why it's not clear. On a more general note, the honest answer is I challenged your comments since nobody else was doing it, so I didn't want to let those claims slide unopposed. There may be a cultural component, too, because I'm from a culture where supernatural claims are often openly questioned whereas, for example, in the US those beliefs are generally not publicly challenged. I also want to make it clear that it's not personal, it's only about the subject at hand. > I really didn't expect this strict of a response to my words from the community It's not the community, so please don't feel ganged up on. Opposition is mostly coming from me at this point. > How should one approach highly speculative questions like this, scientifically? Not presupposing a model of the world that significantly differs from observable reality would be a start. I'm not saying this to be a dick, it's just to address the fact that you are basing your whole argument on a stack of flawed assumptions. > from your perspective, is it possible to even posit this possibility of a non-local consciousness It is possible to posit anything, but if you want to make an acceptable factual claim, you're going to need some extraordinary evidence to back that up. We're talking about evidence that would radically change scientific understanding and would require discarding a large part of all observations made to this day - just to give you an idea of the magnitude. You're basically going to have to demonstrate we're living in the Matrix. > don't you think there is quite a bit more we could still discover? I do, but as I said many times in my responses: these discoveries would be about neurobiology. > We obviously don't have the experimental evidence yet to say things are this way or that We do have a ton of experimental evidence that does not point to any of the supernatural phenomena you're talking about. We don't have, at this moment, any evidence in support of your hypothesis. > so where does one begin? A start would be, when you go on a drug trip next time, bring back some scientific data we can verify that you couldn't have gotten otherwise. There are a lot of these you could do while you're out there in space, starting from exoplanets, to geological observations about our own solar system, the composition of the galaxy, you name it. > Or is the sort of strict responses that I've received due to my delivery? Strict is not the right word, and it's not your delivery. It all comes back to your original claim that consciousness is a paranormal phenomenon and that you can take drugs in order to explore the universe. You have to understand this is an extraordinary claim, right? So go out and get us some actual data from your trips, until then, prepare to encounter skeptics.