The Science Conspiracy: How Autism Drives the World

The Science Conspiracy

How Autistics Took Over the World

Jack Tanner

Copyright © Jack Tanner 2018

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book, or portions thereof in any form. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse engineered, or stored, in any form or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical without the express written permission of the author, except in the case of a reviewer, who may quote brief passages embodied in critical articles or in a review.

ISBN: 978-0-244-76905-5

Imprint: Lulu.com

Table of Contents

The Science Conspiracy

Introduction

Theory of Mind

The Universe

Form and Matter

The Non-Autistics

Which?

Literalism

Intentionality

Psychopaths

Einstein

Central Coherence

The Central Coherence Drug?

Male Science?

Empathy

Game Reality

Sympathy versus Empathy

The Uncertain

The Rationalists

The Sentence

Nothing

Know Thy Enemy

The Dreamers

The Concepts

Nothing Above

Terence McKenna and DMT

The Trans-Dimensional Vehicle

The Dream Age

The Chemistry of Death

The Lightworkers?

The Animal Lovers

Religious Insanity

The Inversion

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation

Conclusion

Introduction

Here’s what science tells you.

You are pointless.

Your existence is meaningless.

You have no purpose.

Your mind is an illusion that emerged from mindlessness.

Your life is an illusion that emerged from lifelessness.

Existence is an illusion that emerged from non-existence.

Existence, such as it is, spontaneously jumped out of non-existence, for no reason, via no mechanism, and will culminate in pointless Heat Death.

You have no soul. You are a mere ephemeral collection of lifeless, mindless atoms.

Free will is an illusion.

Consciousness is an illusion.

The unconscious is an illusion.

You have no choice. Choice is impossible.

Human existence is empty. Human beings are husks, hollow beings with illusory minds.

Consciousness has no causal efficacy. It can never overrule the laws of materialist physics.

Consciousness is a pointless illusion, a meaningless epiphenomenon. It is of the order of unreality. It is a purposeless emergent property.

Nature produces redundant illusions.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Science presents a picture of humans as philosophical zombies, hypothetical beings that seem indistinguishable from normal human beings but actually lack consciousness and sentience. They simulate these things. They do not possess them.

Existence, says science, is governed by chance, accident, randomness, acausation, indeterminism, indeterminacy, probability, statistics and emergence.

Physicist Max Tegmark said, A conscious person is simply food rearranged. This means that your consciousness is reducible to food. This means that all food is potentially conscious, and at the very least contains the seeds of consciousness.

All of real existence is observable, science claims. The unobservable underpinnings of reality are unreal. Reality can be generated from unreality by the collapse of unreal probability wavefunctions.

Reality does not obey the Principle of Sufficient Reason, i.e. science denies that there is a reason why everything is thus and not otherwise.

Science rejects all rational and logical principles. None of these feature in the scientific method, which is predicated on observation, using the fallible, limited, unreliable human senses.

Science rejects philosophy, yet is itself a philosophy. It was previously called natural philosophy and it is now a dogmatic ideology of empiricism, materialism, positivism and naturalism. Science asks for scientists to furnish hypotheses to account for observed data. All such hypotheses are invariably framed and interpreted within science’s philosophy. Science never at any time proves the truth of its philosophy and the falsehood of alternative philosophies. It never considers alternative philosophies and whether or not they have greater explanatory power.

Science denies that reality obeys Occam’s razor. Scientists routinely invoke the Multiverse, the worst-possible violation of Occam’s razor. Scientists refuse to offer the simplest possible solutions, which ultimately reduce to solutions involving zero, a number ontologically forbidden by science.

Science cannot explain why some universal, dimensionless, physical constants of our universe are so fine-tuned for human life and mind. Scientists John Gribbin and Martin Rees wrote, The conditions in our Universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity. But the question remains – is the Universe tailor-made for man? Rather than confront the exceptional unlikeliness of this situation within the paradigm of scientism, science surrounds this universe with infinite other universes, almost all of which are supposed not to possess life and mind. Instead of being a fundamental problem to be addressed, the improbable nature of our universe is dismissed as a mere statistical anomaly, a blip, something bound to occur in a system of infinite universes. Anything that can happen will happen, science proclaims. Science does not define what is capable of happening. Is God or the soul capable of happening? Why not? If it is not forbidden it is compulsory, science says. Science does not define what constitutes forbidden? Isn’t the Multiverse itself forbidden by Occam’s razor?

Science has ceased to explain anything. It now says that all possibilities are enacted across an infinite number of universes. Thus nothing is caused. Things happen merely as a result of having a non-zero probability associated with them, merely for being possible, although science does not define what constitutes possibility. Why are violations of the Principle of Sufficient Reason deemed possible? What rational reason can be given for asserting, as science does, that the Principle of Sufficient Reason, the basis of rational reasons, is impossible? How can that make any sense?

Einstein said, God does not play dice. Science mocks Einstein. Science says that existence is exclusively a set of dice throws, and can’t be anything else. Existence is an inexplicable, unreal, unintelligible probability calculator, which then randomly allocates any possible real outcome to any one of an infinite number of possible universes. There is no design, no purpose, no meaning, no point. Existence is simply a possibility actualizer. It makes all possibilities happen, somewhere or other, and somehow, miraculously, keeps track of all of these possibilities and where they have happened so as not to create exact duplications. Where is this calculator’s memory? How can it keep track of everything? No scientist has ever given a sufficient reason why this should be how existence operates, and indeed how existence can exist at all. What accounts for existence? Are you allowed to shrug your shoulders, as science does, and say, It just is. Now shut up and calculate. If God seems an unlikely explanation of reality, what science asserts is infinitely worse. It has no conceivable rational and logical basis. It is as far from the philosophy of rationalism and idealism as it is possible to get. It is the formal inversion of rationalism and idealism.

Scientists are perfectly happy to offer inexplicable randomness, or inexplicable infinite regress, as ways of explaining how the universe came to be. But these are not explanations at all. They are the avoidance of explanation. Science, when it comes to ultimate questions, seems absolutely committed to not providing answers. Nor can it, because any rational, intelligible answer to existence presupposes an eternal, necessary, a priori rational order of existence, and this is precisely what science, as an empiricist subject totally opposed to rationalism (its philosophical opposite), explicitly rejects.

Science used to tell you that you were part of a deterministic cosmic machine. Pierre-Simon Laplace wrote, Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective situation of the beings who compose it - an intelligence sufficiently vast to submit these data to analysis - it would embrace in the same formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the lightest atom; for it, nothing would be uncertain and the future, as the past, would be present to its eyes. Now science says the complete opposite and claims you are part of an indeterministic cosmic casino. It never comments on its astonishing 180 degrees reversal. Yesterday what it told you was black, it now tells you is white, and it doesn’t even blush when it says so. It never refers to its self-contradictions. What 100% contradiction of its previous stance will it arrive at next? There is nothing in science to prevent any such inversion. Its method leaves the possibility permanently open.

===

Science is a shallow, banal, anti-intellectual subject mired in atheism, skepticism, nihilism and materialism (the classical opposite of intellectualism). It is a ferociously anti-life ideology. Lifeless matter is, after all, the essence of non-life.

What kind of people go to great lengths to deny meaning and purpose, to trumpet that existence is pointless, that we have no free will and that our consciousness is an illusion? What kind of people are motivated to adopt this stance? Why would you go out of your way to sign up to this when much more rational alternatives are available? You must be eager to embrace this worldview and eager to reject contrary worldviews. Somehow, this worldview is the one you want to be true. If you didn’t, you would put in a strenuous effort to reach a different conclusion.

People that suffer from Walking Corpse syndrome (Cotard’s syndrome) believe they are dead or do not exist. They explain away any evidence that they are in fact alive and exist. Isn’t that what scientists do? Are they suffering from a clinical delusion about their ontological status?

Philosophical zombies resemble people, but aren’t. They are Cartesian automata with no interiority. Scientists make an extra effort to present themselves in exactly these soulless terms. They seek to convince you that your mind is unreal, that you are just a walking, talking pile of reorganized food!

Then there are people who suffer from mindblindness, or lack of Theory of Mind. Normal people come equipped with this vital property – the ability to reflect on the contents of their own mind and the minds of others. You require Theory of Mind in order to have empathy for others. People on the autistic spectrum lack Theory of Mind. The more alienated you are from mind and its power, the more likely you are to be a materialist and to deny the reality of mind. Scientists never refer to mind as an independent feature of existence. There can be only one reason for that: they themselves are estranged from mind, they have a degraded mind, and they don’t perceive their own mind as real and causal. It is their lack of connection to mind that makes them materialists. Matter seems absolutely real to them. Nothing else does. With their sense organs, they perceive (so they imagine) matter. In fact, the material world, such as it is, is purely an idea in minds. There is not one iota of evidence that matter exists as something independent of mind, and there never can be. Everything you think about matter relies on your mind. Therefore, by Occam’s razor, it is perverse to reject the self-evident truth that mind is the primary reality and instead to turn to a supposed thing (matter) whose existence you hypothesize purely thanks to your mind. All materialists privilege their senses over reason and logic, over purely mental, conceptual activities. At all times, they conspire against mind. At all times, they reject all conclusions based on mind