[[Rupert Spira]] argues that scientist can't verify that there's something called matter that exists outside of consciousness, because if it's outside of consciousness it can't be experienced or known. Therefore the only thing that can be verified is consciousness, because that's all that's experienced. However, good scientists know that our experience doesn't provided unfiltered or raw access to reality. For example, our eyes can't see x-rays, but we know that they're there. So how do we know that x-rays, or matter, is there or real if we can't directly experience it? Or how do we know that Big Bang happened when we weren't alive to witness it? Here's Rupert's take on how we know things: "As experience is all that could ever be known, we must start with experience, proceeding cautiously, like a scientist, trusting only our observation, doubting every belief and assertion, and only making statements that can be tested and verified by independent observers." This is wrong. [[Knowledge isn't derived from experience]]. [[Theories are conjectured]]. And these theories are then criticized to create good explanations: [[Knowledge consists of good explanations]]. Using experience to test theories is a component of creating good explanations: [[Science is testable]]. But experience allows us to decide between conjectures, it's not the foundation of knowledge. Related: [[There is no such thing as explanationless theories]]. Rupert also says: "The materialist paradigm is a philosophy of despair and conflict and, as such, the root cause of the unhappiness felt by individuals and the hostilities between communities and nations." (By materialist paradigm, Rupert means the idea that physical matter exists outside of consciousness and that the right configuration of matter creates consciousness.) But [[Conceptually understanding the nature of reality isn't a requirement for awakening]]. [[Awakening is experientially understanding the true nature of experience]]. So I think it's more the failure to understand [[Nonduality]] experientially that causes conflict and despair: [[You are what you seek]] and [[External conflict is internal conflict]]. That said, we don't yet have a good materialist explanation for consciousness and duality. So some epistemological openness to possibility of nonduality may be helpful, because conceptual rigidness to the idea of materialism could close one off to the experience of nonduality. And often [[Parts don't need better explanations of spiritual truths. They need their fears to be addressed]]. I think openness to the possibility of a nondual explanation of the nature of reality may also lead to better explanations. And my guess is that having an experiential understanding of nonduality would help to open people up to the possibility of a nondual explanation of reality. I've been tinkering with one myself for a few years now, but it's a hard problem. See also: [[There are many bad spiritual ideas that we should criticize]] and [[Spiritual teachings can and should evolve]]