Here’s an entire page to fully address this, and properly nip it in the bud.
This page is distinctly longer than most other pages on this site, which signifies its importance.
Q: How the hell is consciousness mechanics scientific? It's metaphysical pseudoscience! It’s a bunch of silly nilly woo woo!!
A: Consciousness mechanics (CM) is both science and philosophy, insofar as it is based upon describing the behavior of physical and mental phenomena, and how and why physical phenomena exist as they do. It’s new territory, because it merges the tangible and seemingly intangible, through logic and physical evidence—it doesn’t get any more scientific than that.
Every single natural science amounts to nothing more than an explanation for physical evidence. It doesn’t matter if there’s a fancy, well documented experiment involved—that’s just another step in explaining the physical evidence. It’s still about defining what can be observed. This is why old ideas are always being ousted for new ideas, even while defining the same physical evidence.
In CM, concepts are always presented as one perspective of defining a certain set of experiences; e.g., Planck-state phenomena. It’s explained that this is merely one way of describing how time works in the physical universe, and is not completely literal. There’s only one moment that keeps changing, which produces the effect of multiple moments involving different spaces and times—that’s completely literal. It's all about context: When you describe the physical universe in the context that it is a continuity hallucination, many definitions become both literal and not-literal, depending on context. And remember, hallucinations are real, tangible, sensory experiences; however, they can be described as "fake" in certain contexts, like a movie. Watching a movie can be an incredibly moving, real experience, but that doesn't change the fact that you're observing colorful light symbolize actors pretending to be certain roles, in an environment you can only see a small, boxed portion of. "Real," "fake," and "illusion" is a matter of the context and subject you're describing; e.g., speaking in the context of inside versus outside a movie's fictional universe.
Long story short, if you define something you’ve observed, your definition can only be as wrong as compared to another definition. Truth is relative. What is defined as "truth" is a specific, unique label created by an observer.
An insane person having illogical, contradictory definitions you can easily see are wrong and nonsensical, doesn’t negate their experience of their truth as real—that’s the reality of an insane person. People are considered "insane" or "stupid" because of they are perceived to be illogical. The person judging another to be insane may hold beliefs a future version of themselves would deem to be just as incorrect. You can see all of this exhibited very blatantly—in full spectacle—in politics. It's normal to hear about politicians, pundits, and fans telling demonstrable falsehoods, and saying and doing things they'd denounce others for saying and doing. This behavior can also be found in many organized religions. This is being mentioned to drive home how human it is to make up your own narrative, even in the face of contradictory evidence, especially for authoritative purposes. Popular science and its fans are not exempt from this tendency.
Calling something "scientific" or "pseudoscientific" doesn't address the information’s correctness. They are adjectives commonly used to credit or discredit something, by making an association with mainstream groupthink. Calling something "pseudoscientific" can allow one to stop thinking critically, and not investigate the logical merit of that information. The key phrase is can allow, meaning that some stuff is, quite clearly, pseudoscientific bullshit, wherein not only is it outside conventional science, there's no demonstrable, logical connection to it. But to reiterate, "pseudoscience" can also be used to readily dismiss what you don't understand.
That’s why I like to call things "mechanical," rather than "scientific," because the word scientific is just a buzzword that can mean “relating to experimented, peer-reviewed, documented observations” or “a scientist said it,” both of which appeal to an authority complex, which still doesn't make the information mechanically correct.
CM actually makes logical sense, and isn’t just saying feel-good stuff for the sake of feeling good. Don’t lump CM in with the 12th dimensional, flat/hollow/inner Earth, Atlantean, Pleiadian, crystal crown kundalini chocolate charizard chakra channeling crowd. Don’t just parrot the this-is-about-consciousness-so-it’s-automatically-metaphysical-nonsense type sentiment.
I say this because a lot of the critique (“critique” is putting it nicely) I’ve come across tends to be knee-jerk expressions of “a scientist didn’t say it so it’s not true,” without addressing the logical validity of the information. Believe it or not, scientists sometimes say things that are patently false, such as those that have spoken authoritatively about things now considered unfounded and hypothetical, à la gravitons. Gravitons and tachyons are no more real than bigfoot riding a unicorn, yet there are scientists that have talked about them as physically real. There are scientific disciplines taught in college with very little physical proof of existence, but have the luxury of being called "science" because a scientist made it up. For example, all the vast concepts in string theory. There are countless obsolete scientific journals now considered pseudoscience, which were once considered scientific. Don’t fool yourself into thinking that labeling something scientific or pseudoscientific measures the physical correctness of the information—it doesn’t. Time and time again, this has been “scientifically” proven.
Now don’t get the wrong idea, I ABSOLUTELY LOVE SCIENCE! And have since a child. You can probably tell by the physical equations and general terminology on the site. I just don’t like throwing the term “science” around much, because it appeals to authority, and not critical thinking. I love science so much, I’m here to offer new, fresh concepts, because I’m completely dissatisfied with the information I’ve seen available on these topics, and I’m not the type of person to just complain and do nothing to fix what I’m complaining about. I realized my dissatisfaction is my ability to be the change I want to see, regardless if I get insulted and chastised for doing so. Even right now, there are people that will read this and think, “that’s not new! That’s not fresh!” Expressing basic conviction pisses off those who don't. People will ruffle their own feathers, all because I have the balls to not just parrot what they were raised to parrot; scientifically, religiously, or philosophically. I’m here to help others think completely outside the box, and challenge conventional wisdom on matter, mind, consciousness, and the brain. That’s how much I love all the various natural sciences—I’m contributing a new one.
One thing I’ve noticed irks some people is that CM is all about what already exists, as if your reality experience—which is literally your experience of yourself—has to be some grand, unknowable mystery. Obviously certain details are complex and relatively unknowable, but what you are calling “reality” SHOWS YOU REALITY—CONSCIOUSNESS MECHANICS EXPLAINS WHAT REALITY ALREADY SHOWS YOU IT IS! This is why much of CM is an explanation for what already exists in a logical manner, based on demonstrable, self-evident truths. There’s no making things up to just make things up. It’s all about what exists and how reality operates, which is by definition self-evident.
The concepts in CM all pertain the to the human experience.
Much of the seemingly unprovable stuff is capable of being somewhat proved. I say "somewhat" because you are a limited physical being, and can’t do things like be at two different timelines at once. That’s why it’s important to understand that context is key, and in the context that the timeline-spaceline concept is presented, it’s just a way of explaining the one ever-changing moment, and relative to that limit, you can still observe some expanded concepts in real-time. The human brain can do many, MANY things that allow validation for the multidimensional concepts of CM. You can literally tune the mind’s eye to see the past (memory), possible futures, and different timeline versions of life events. Just how it’s possible to see the past without injecting fantasy nonsense, you can also see possible futures and alternate versions of Earth, just as cleanly and tangibly as a vivid memory. The key term here is POSSIBLE FUTURES—the specifics of the future, like lottery numbers, aren’t set in stone. General inevitabilities, like a person's death, are. However, the specifics as to how the death will exactly occur, like lottery numbers, are not set in stone. The reality authoritarians who say this stuff isn't possible don't have a mechanical understanding of what the mind's eye even is. They just say it's not possible because they can't do it, and don't know anyone that can.
This whole “timeline proof” idea goes deeper (it’s really, really deep!), but I’ll save that for a CM video. Long story short, in the future, there will be technology that will be able to mimic the brain’s ability to do these inter-dimensional feats, and thus experience certain kinds of “time travel”—everything already exists, so you’re not “really” traveling, and you already do it naturally using the biological technology that is your brain to generate memory. But once this mechanism is fully understood, it will be able to be replicated artificially. The new era of technological innovation for the human species involves mimicking the head. This is already happening, through the advent of the internet functioning as a mass mind, and computers with their software behaving as primitive brains.