Sriram,
You are the ultimate reductionist! You are missing out all the emergent properties that have arisen along the way!
Torri is very aware of emergent properties, and to be “reductionist” there needs to be something to reduce
from. Just claiming a conjecture for which there’s no evidence to be an “emergent property” in the hope of riding on the coat tails of phenomena that actually are emergent properties is cheating.
We still don't know what the Mind is...much less what the Unconscious mind is.
Actually we do know quite a lot about both these things, but yes – there is much to learn still about the nature of consciousness. That doesn’t though mean you can just drop in any woo that takes your fancy to plug the gap.
To know oneself...there are other ways besides looking into our flesh and identifying the tissues, cells, DNA and atoms.
The other way is introspection. Looking into the mind and identifying our motivations, thoughts and finally the inner self. Its a much bigger and complex world than the physical one.
First, what makes you think that these things aren’t “physical”?
Second, once you have done these things how would you propose to bridge the gap from impressions to verifiable facts?
In any case, all these are philosophical points that are not amenable to rigorous scientific inquiry under microscopes.
Science is about a lot more than “looking through a microscope” as you so dismissively put it, and if not for the methods of science what method would you propose instead to distinguish your claims from woo?
PS: In reincarnation and NDE research what do you expect except anecdote? You actually expect to see the soul through some instrument?
PS In research into the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns and the Man in the Moon what else do you expect except anecdote?
Why should anyone take anecdotes about NDEs any more seriously than they should take anecdotes about any of these things?
