The problem with the current approach to research

Standard waking state is seen as the primary framework of all existence. It is taken as being fundamental so research on other states of reality is geared to, and modeled on, approaches suited to things within that standard.

The thing is - that approach is completely backwards. Standard waking state, and all within it, is just one attribute (one version if you prefer) of existence.

You may say that there is no proof of that and I will counter that if you mean proof that meets the "standard state" approach, I agree but even within that approach there is however an abundance of evidence of that (I assume the reader gets the difference between proof and evidence)

Almost every "anomaly" has aspects that show a connection to something other than standard waking state. I hope that the reader agrees with that much. In fact I'd go as far as to say that the whole discourse on here is based on researching that something. And there lies the rub. Even those who maintain that "greater reality" is not generated by the brain - still proceed with research approaches that are applicable only if it is. IOW almost all current research methodologies are valid only if that something has its roots in a physical source.

The allegiance to the "standard state" approach is clearly very strong - especially for those who consider themselves intellectual or "scientific minded". So strong that even many of those who see a need to move beyond materialist science think of that movement in terms that amount to "applying the principles and/or methods of materialist science in other directions." But to continue to use an approach which works well for researching the physical to investigate that which I maintain is very different to and is responsible for the physical is neither intellectual or, in the true sense of the word, scientific. It is often simply holding on to what's familiar.
The tricky part of course is in constructing other approaches. It is in some ways, wide-open. Raising children who are guided in developing those other approaches as much as they are in using the standard approach would be a great help but, given the setup of our societies, that will likely only come after.

So as I see it, three likely approaches are dreams, OBEs and modified RV. And, to reiterate, I'm not suggesting doing standard model research on those areas. I am putting forth those areas as the methods/approaches by which the research is done.

I'll pick dreams to explain more about how I see this being developed. As I see it the first things would be that those involved are able to maintain knowledge of waking state while in dream state (akin to lucid dreaming) and to also re-enter SWS with a clear translation of what they do in DS. An additional prerequisite would be that the researchers are as genuinely open-minded as can be determined.

From there, I think that the research will be as varied as it is within SWS.
Decide to have a look at the stated approach by the Institute for Noetic Sciences and found that they are that in name only. A more accurate name would be Institute for combining some of the Noetic with Conventional Sciences. But yeah . that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it. lol

What are the Noetic Sciences?
no•et•ic: From the Greek noēsis / noētikos, meaning inner wisdom, direct knowing, or subjective understanding.

sci•ence: Systems of acquiring knowledge that use observation, experimentation, and replication to describe and explain natural phenomena.

no•et•ic sci•ences: A multidisciplinary field that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the full range of human experiences.
For centuries, philosophers from Plato forward have used the term noetic to refer to experiences that pioneering psychologist William James (1902) described as:

…states of insight into depths of truth unplumbed by the discursive intellect. They are illuminations, revelations, full of significance and importance, all inarticulate though they remain; and as a rule they carry with them a curious sense of authority.

The term noetic sciences was first coined in 1973 when the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) was founded by Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell, who two years earlier became the sixth man to walk on the moon. Ironically, it was the trip back home that Mitchell recalls most, during which he felt a profound sense of universal connectedness—what he later described as a samadhi experience. In Mitchell’s own words, “The presence of divinity became almost palpable, and I knew that life in the universe was not just an accident based on random processes. . . .The knowledge came to me directly.”

It led him to conclude that reality is more complex, subtle, and mysterious than conventional science had led him to believe. Perhaps a deeper understanding of consciousness (inner space) could lead to a new and expanded understanding of reality in which objective and subjective, outer and inner, are understood as co-equal aspects of the miracle of being. It was this intersection of knowledge systems that led Dr. Mitchell to launch the interdisciplinary field of noetic sciences.


IOW I am stating that to know more about reality genuine Noetic Sciences are a must.​