[irickt]

Ugh. Has Scientific American become PseudoScientific American?

Recently they published this https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/could-mult... by an author who believes ""There is only cosmic consciousness. We, as well as all other living organisms, are but dissociated alters of cosmic consciousness, surrounded by its thoughts. The inanimate world we see around us is the revealed appearance of these thoughts. The living organisms we share the world with are the revealed appearances of other dissociated alters. This idealist ontology makes sense of reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism ..." https://www.ingentaconnect.com/contentone/imp/jcs/2018/00000...

[s-shellfish]

For as much as reality is patterned, and can be comprehend 'absolutely' in a pragmatic, utilitarian sense - there's also another side to awareness (or many, I can never be sure). Imagine that everything that has to do with 'mind' is just as comprehensible in a different way. Or rather, imagine that that awareness 'takes over' or 'overrides' the natural awareness one was taught or learned to comprehend 'reality' with.

Science is vitally important to understanding things, making progress (however humanity defines it), building things, etc. But deep insight philosophically, I mean in my opinion, that's just as important, because they go hand in hand. One becomes a tool for the other. Or a tool turns into an awareness.

As someone whose had more than their fair share of experience wading in the somewhat deep (as in 'crazy') parts of the conscious pool of thought, yea, reality, comprehending it in the same way it's known to others - absolutely vital. But also not.

Doesn't make it pseudoscience. Just different questions, different things being noticed, taken apart, figured out, asked about, pondered on. Just like anything else, like ants on a trail to Feynman. Just because it looks 'weird', misinformed - whatever - for a brief instant, doesn't mean that's what it's going to turn into.

[irickt]

Over a few decades Scientific American has gone from deep research reports, to pop science, and now to untestable cosmic thinking and other clickbait. If it is not testable it is not scientific thinking.

Philosphical thinking may also be grounded in recurring phenomena or be completely blue-sky. A philosophy that premises alternate reality begins by ignoring how underdetermined is the human brain when reflecting on itself. A scientific exploration is grounded in physical premises even if no objective data is possible.

[optimuspaul]

I think you may be looking at the past through a filter. Perhaps you definition of pop science has drifted over the past few decades.

[n4r9]

Should we dismiss someone's writings because of other things they believe? Newton was convinced that the Bible contained hidden meanings and spent great amounts of time trying to extract scientific information and prophecies from it.

[gowld]

SciAm hosts a lot of Blogs with no editorial oversight. It's unfortunate. Nature does too.