For preview only. Get it at

Beyond Reason

2013, Philosophy  -   148 Comments
Ratings: 6.78/10 from 67 users.

This is the latest documentary from the maker of Beyond Me and Beyond Belief, Frank Huguenard. His premise is that our intellects are bound by our perceptions and what we perceive is limited by our five senses.

From what we've learned though modern physics, what get through our five senses is more unreal than it is real. In order to reach the truth, we need to go Beyond Reason.

At the very beginning the author states that like dream within a dream, this film is merely a projection within a projection, an illusion within an illusion.

And like the ounce of gold that seems to take on the appearance of a necklace, or seems to appear as a bracelet, what we perceive to be our physical world only appears to be real, when in fact is not.

More great documentaries

148 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Beyond reason is belief. No more no less. Let reason be your guide to uncover more of the Universe. Why would you want to guess without a reasoned basis?

  2. This is not philosophy. This is Church of Religious Science's humbug. Frank Huguenard and his ilk are frauds. Philosophy is not a grabbag of disjointed, misrepresented ideas. It is a discipline which trains the practitioner to think clearly, methodically, rationally, empirically and pragmatically. This dreck is anti-philosophical and a misrepresentation of physics and psychology.

  3. i think it kinda works like this: we live in the physical realm. our senses are made for the physical realm.
    so this is the base where we grow and learn from.

    that wich caused life in the first place, is from outside the physical realm. lets call it spirit for the sake of simplicity.

    so the spirit wants to incorporate the physical realm, wich is why life happened in the first place. now its a long journey to evolve, become conscious, self aware etc.

    the stronger we become in the physical world (mind, logic, knowledge),
    the stronger the link to the spirit and its input becomes.
    also the more mentally independet one becomes.

    this makes it important to be open minded as they say. to not deny improvement.

    so in the end it comes down to this: there was a big bang, existence (physical realm) was created. this means, the physical aspect of existence got separated or was newly created from/by the rest of existence.

    and now were(we, the conscious part of us) on the journey
    of either incorporating or reincorporating the physical realm into the whole. wich is gonna take a lot of time and work^^.

    the conscious part of us, = you and i is one, joining into the material bodies wich gives us the experience of individuality.
    (the physical realm has its own set of rules and restrictions... no way around it)

    and obviously, the spirit is stronger than the matter.

    all religions only try to describe this situation, wich is why they DONT contradict one another, theyre just different approaches to describe the one same thing.

  4. Science is not concerned with truth in the religious sense. Because in science “what is true” is “what is”. For these to be different things, you have to assume that there is an “untruthful” way of existing.

    There is a big diference between human experience, and human existence. Reality and perception. Science is not a moral path, it’s a tool for explaining reality, it does not aspire to signify it.

    If it is true that science is much useless for the individual as a moral compus, to state that it has nothing to say about good or evil is appallingly ignorant. It can for instance say something about health. It’s relevant in certain traditions of genital mutilation, child marriages… etc.

    Why do religions always have to make such large claims for themselves? No one disputes that there is more to the human experience then the direct material reality that surrounds the person. Why does that sentient dimension, that emotional dimension, that unknown dimension have to contain “truth”? Worse. “absolute truth”, infinite existence?

    I have great respect for some aspects of Hinduism and Buddhist philosophies and no one disputes that some of it’s exercises are beneficial to the health of the practitioner. What I can’t get my head around are the claims that these manipulations of the mind/body duality are any more than that, an exploration of experience.

    Anyone here for the bits of the Vedas can start watching after minute 36 and spear it self of the first half an hour of ludicrousness. It would be a better doc without the science reference.

  5. This was quite good, although I didn't get that it was actually a plug for eastern spiritual practices until a good way in. Anyway, it does a good job of explaining the "philosophy" of science and of showing the difficulty in trying to imply a science in the philosophy of eastern spirituality.
    Any rational scientist would admit that while science seeks to "know" reality, because of our human limitations, that being we perceive reality thru our senses, therefore it is probably not possible for us as humans to perceive the totality of reality. We cannot even know if we can truly know reality or not.
    Eastern philosophy seems to posit that we can know the totality of reality thru a higher state of consciousness, beyond our senses. But it seems to me that if that were true, then Eastern philosophy would have brought us some new truths and realizations of reality beyond what our senses and even our imaginations could ever do and as far as I'm aware, they haven't done this. So to me this is proof, at least at this point in time, that the basic premise of Eastern philosophy that if we follow certain practices we will come to know the ultimate reality, is not true.
    In other words, if humans had evolved without eyes, if meditating truly connected us with the "one" consciousness, we would know of the existense of light and color even without eyes. And by extension, of course there are things around us which we have not evolved an organ to "sense", yet know one has yet discovered what those things are.
    I do like the eastern practices and I believe they help us achieve states of being which are different from our normal western states of being, but without knowing "meaning" we cannot really ascribe values such as good, bad, better or worse to any state of being.
    As for the flute playing throughout the doc, if you've ever dabbled in eastern practices you know that type of music is common and you get used to it and most even find it calming.

    1. @Joe Shmoe: I respect what you said. Ironically, Einstein stated that if we used 100% of our potential brain power, we would have no need for physical bodies. In reality, there is so much that we can't perceive with our 5 senses, which only tune into a tiny piece of the electromagnetic spectrum, and 4 dimensions. ( missing 7 more assuming that string theory is correct) The nice thing about the documentary is the realization that science itself will never answer all of our questions due to the nature of existance, and it's rules. Ultimately, even scientists have to take a 'leap of faith' if they wish to better understand the universe in which we live. This doesn't require a religious perspective, only the understanding that to dismiss anything out of hand is merely a self imposed limitation.
      P.S: Imagine the possibilities. (potentiality) Take care, and best wishes Joe!

  6. An excellent documentary that explains very well our notion of what we know, and the vast majority of what we can never know with certainty. (science) For those who believe science is the answer to everything, and disregard the value of philosophy, thought, and creativity, need to watch this show to bring them back to earth. Are you listening Richard Dawkins?

    1. You can't have science without thought, creativity, and philosophy. That's why scientists used to be called "natural philosophers", not "scientists". You have completely misunderstood what science actually is. No, Richard Dawkins is not listening to you, there are millions of other people with better ideas than you who he can listen to first, and life is short.

    2. @Gaz: Yup, we do have commmon ground in the belief that you can't have science without creativity and philosophy. (There are some hard line bloggers who would disagree with our assessment) If you read my original bog more carefully, I stated for those who believe. (not you, not me) Too bad you didn't catch my sarcasm regarding Richard Dawkins. Your time could have been better spent giving your opinion regarding the documentary itself, instead of responding with insult. (the loss of certainty in science from the impact of quantum mechanics)
      P.S: Dawkins is a highly intelligent man who requires proof for everything, even when it is impossible! (self imposed limitation)

    3. surely you're not trying to appeal rationally or reasonably to the rubber stamp reductionists and canned argument beta troops, you realize that thinking for themselves will void there tax free status at the dawkins foundation gift shop, and you know those double helix pendents and non-peer reviewed scientism paperbacks aren't going to buy themselves. and now that Dawkins has a foundation with tax free status (non religous of course) he may be able to explore his Zoology and animal behaviour degrees and add a naked ape petting zoo for the children, I would like your opinion , do you thnk that an animal behaviourist would prefer to use operant conditioning or neurolinguistic programming to capture live specimens for the petting zoo?

    4. @terrasodium: Wow, you want to say that again, in english this time. (funny stuff terrasodium)
      I would have to go with conditioning over programming since Dawkins could easily mesmorize his subjects. ( blinks 3 times a second) Of course, he could take a 'leap of faith' but he would fail miserably!

  7. High logical fallacy per second ratio turned me off within 10 minutes.

  8. the tree is a sentient being, its there when it falls. hehe all joking aside....

    sound = movement = collision = distortion = frequency/pattern = sound .. they are all exactly the same thing.

    there is no sound out side of movement and collision and/or vibration. the sensation we get in our brain when our ear drum vibrates is an aproxomation of the vibrations (movement/collision/sound) and in the same way physical pain is an aproxomation of physical contact the actual feeling being generated is again in the brain.

    if the sensation we have in our brain when our ear drum has particles collide with it (soundwave) is what we are calling 'sound' then with no brain (or any biological system capable of perception on a physical level like vibration/sound, humans, animals, the tree??) there is no sound......


    if what we are calling 'sound' is the vibration/movement/collision of particles that is being perceived then the sound exists regardless of an observer, it only requires the event to take place.

    the problem is that we still use the same words and definitions for both the sensation we get in our brain when our ear drums vibrate and for the collision of particles and resulting so called sound waves that are being perceived.

    but they are not the same thing. 1 is a messurable physical movement we call sound waves or collision .... and the other is a philosophical oddity occuring in the brain that is still yet to be fully understood from a scientific/physical point of view.

    and by that i dont mean a neural science point of view, i mean we hear a noise in our brain, but its not an audible sound that can be detected.


    If we play a sound on 1 side of a room it will take a finite amount of time to travel to the human/ear on the other side of the room...

    (its a physical event that can be detected as vibration or sound waves).

    ...upon hitting the ear drum an electric signal (roughly speaking) will be sent to the brain where it is translated back into what we hear as an audible sound in our brain

    ... but that sound we hear in our brain can not be picked up and recorded with a microphone. its not being transmitted or moving particles in the same way, its not a speaker generating the sound in our head, its an awareness of the translation that is not the same as what science calls 'sound' or a 'soundwave'

    the noise in our heads is completely different to the physical event that created it.

    just like the picture in our heads is not the actual physical object being observed, but a translation of information from out senses to create a picture in our brain... and like the sound... its location is unknown and unobserved ....

    (where in physical space is the projector that is our minds eye?? where in physical space the picture we see?? not a nueron flashing but the actual image we see and call reality.

    and what is actually 'looking' at the image that only exists in our brain/consciousness??)) is being generated locally in our brain and we see it as a visual image, but its not like a physical image being projected to a screen like the cinema, it cant be re-recorded from within our brain in the same way a hand held video recorder records light and then replays the light pattern. the image in our brain is NOT made of light.

    (or so we think/just dont know, at this point in time at least)

    just like the sound in our brain is not physical vibration like the physical event we call sound that our ears detect and is the topic of this debate it seems.

    they are different and so that must be noted when asking the question...

    if a tree falls in the woods and nothing is there to hear it, does it make a sound??

    lets forget the debate over the definition of ''hear'' for now, because it would require a very VERY long debate about the potential/actual consciousness of plant life!

    .... because if plant life has an ability to 'hear' it would render the whole question pointless a tree cant fall in the woods with nothing there to hear it if the tree its self can ''hear'' (detect and translate/know/make meaning of vibration/collision/sound)

    the question also presumes that all animal/insect/fungus everything that either can or potentially could hear/detect sound waves is also not present when the tree falls... in the woods... with loads of big and small animals vital to the ecosystem needed to create and sustain a 'woods'' along with all the other plant life. hehe

    but without being overly silly we will assume a tree has been placed on a giant 500 mile wide concrete square slab and somehow the testers also managed to remove all organic matter (lets forget the debate on all matter being conscious even on a sub-atomic level for now huh?) from the area.

    with a timer set to knock the tree over once the area is confirmed to be clear of all organic matter and all potential recording/listening/hearing equipment

    .... and then , sorry i said without being silly but oh well

    ....then we say that the tree its self is potentially aware and can hear sounds ...and so its either deaf or dead but either way the tree can not hear and it has been confirmed by whatever means needed.....

    the timer goes off... the tree falls....

    it hits the floor....hard!!

    the ground will vibrate and the air will also vibrate....

    if sound is the vibration/movement/distortion of particles/matter... then it makes a sound!

    if sound is the event in a conscious entities brain then.... no brain = no sound!.

    thats it.

    1. Did you know that neuroscientists can now actually map the image of what a person sees by recording brain function and then displaying it on a computer monitor? The resolution is not amazing but the fact it can be done is amazing. So even when the image is defined as "what is perceived by the mind" it still exists in a measurable and detectable way.

    2. yes i am very aware of this research.

      but you are slightly mis-representing it.

      they are not ''seeing'' the image produced as we ''see'' it in our minds.

      they are re-translating the signal back into visual. they are not actually looking at an image in the brain, they see a neural/electrical pattern and decode that.
      just like a DVD player doesnt play the image inside its self.. it sends a signal down an electrical network to then be displayed as a visual image by a projector or light generating visual equipment of some kind.

      light goes into our eyes, this can be decoded and has been. but its not an image as we see it in our minds. thats like saying if you look closely at the electrical signal being sent down the wire from your DVD player to your TV set, you can ''see'' the image in the wire... no... you see a coded signal that represents the image, not the actual our minds we see the image. not the signal.

      somewhere, its being created / projected in a sense. you see? they have seen the wires (nueral pathways) transmitting the signal, not the actual image.

      just like mind operated robotics have been done through mapping the nervous and nueral pathways accociated with moving a bodily limb and decoding the signals so as to learn them, program them into a computer program or robot arm and then attach a wire to a persons head and have them move the robot arm with thought alone.

      what the science you speak of is showing is that we have located the part of the brain that is doing the decoding and been able to literally reverse translate the signal/code back into visual with our visual display tech. they have not seen a recognisable image in the brain, and yet i see 1, we all do.

      unless that image is not located in my brain and we start a VERY long debate about the potential exsistance and nature of conciousness its self. (which we are almost doing anyway when discussing the brain and sensory understanding on these levels.)

      i see, a fully rendered, 3D enviroment, better than any graphics we have ever seen. i create a fully rendered 3D image in my brain that is NOT seeable by any1 else, they can ONLY see the electrical signal being sent along the wires, they can not see the image. (unless they re-translate the signal, and create their own image, because there isnt 1 in the brain they can ''see'' without re-translating the pattern/code)

      just like they can NOT hear the sound... which is the point of your comback with this rubbish, i assume?

      they can not see the actual image, only the signal.

      they can NOT hear the actual sound i hear... they can ONLY see the electrical/nueral signal.

      the 'noise'' we all hear and the actual 3D image we ''see'' is a REPRESENTATION of them signals.

      the signals them selves are only a coded format of the information being sent from our sensory imputs (eyes ears, touch etc) , that information is whatever our senses are capable of picking up from an actual event in spacetime. (sound waves hitting our ear drums, or light going into our eyes and so on.)

      scientist can now detect the signals, but they cant see or hear it unless they use a speaker or TV set to generate the noises or images. but we see and hear them in our head/minds with no aparrant sound or visual equipment... and thats my point in general, ''no aparrant'' audio or visual generating equipment in our minds...where is the image we see?? how does the noise we hear not generate vibrations or reverb inside our brain??

      so yes im aware, but i dont see your point.

      was that ment to mean or show me something??

      or did you just watch a cool docu on it and assumed it means you understand it enough to just loosely state its existance and ask if im aware?


    3. "they are not ''seeing'' the image produced as we ''see'' it in our minds.

      they are re-translating the signal back into visual. they are not actually looking at an image in the brain, they see a neural/electrical pattern and decode that."

      That is a little redundant isn't it? Obviously that is what they were doing.

    4. very well explained...this subtlty is what many miss with "seeing" and "hearing".

    5. I think you are trying way too hard.

    6. Plus the point has already been made and can be summed up into one sentence. "it depends on what you use as a definition of sound".

  9. They don't exactly come out and say it but I believe the truth and the practices they are referring to will be found in Hindu Mysticism. Maybe that's where it's at, I don't know, but I don't see why they aren't up front with it. Hare Krishna!

  10. That is why this doco is under philosophy category.

  11. This doco claims it has the answer to the question: "if a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?".

    In the opening of the doco, the presenter insinuates the answer is no, and he claims this to have been scientifically proven and peer reviewed to be fact.

    Just like other pseudoscience films such as "the secret" and "what the bleep be we dont know". It uses the uncertainties in quantum mechanics and science in general to make unsubstantiated conclusions. But at least it does not misrepresent science or its guests on purpose like these other two films.

    While the 2 physicists in the film are mostly worth listening to as they have some great things to say, the "host" and "gurus" can mostly be ignored if anything worth knowing is to be taken from this film.

    1. I haven't seen the film yet. Though it seems to me that the reasonable answer to that question is no, because sound is an interpretation of the ear. If there is no ear, there is no sound. There is vibrational activity, but no ear present to interpret it as sound. Sound is the relationship between the phenomena and it's interpretor.

    2. So if you record the sound with a recording device then listen to it later has the tree made a sound? The sound is there if you hear it or not. Or do you suggest no sound was made until you listen to the recording? If so how did the sound of a falling tree get onto the recording device while no human ears were there interpret?

      How about if you instead view a physical representation of the sounds waveform a a screen? You can then see the sound instead if hearing it. Has the tree still made no sound?

    3. A recording device like that is similar to an ear in that it is designed to translate vibration into audio, so when you play it you will recognize it. The greater event itself can be picked up on all kinds of frequencies and by all kinds of instruments for reading vibratory signatures. If you used a device that translated the vibration into something entirely different then you wouldn't experience sound.

      For what you said about viewing a physical representation. You would not be seeing sound, you would be seeing the vibration, which can be translated into sound by an audio device, represented to the visual sense. The same vibratory event can be interpreted in different ways by different senses(instruments) and it doesn't mean it 'is' all of those.

      If there were no organisms capable of recognizing audio in the universe, there wouldn't 'be' sound going on that no being is capable of recognizing. That would be like saying that there are innumerable sensorial expressions going on at all times with no appropriate senses to experience them. Rather, the field is neutral until it is interpreted by senses that do exist and are present to experience. Man is not separate from nature, the observer and the observed are integral parts of the whole.

    4. You are over complicating the matter IMO. The question is "if no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound", which by the way was only an analogy I used to explain the way this doco falsely tries to answer philosophical questions with pseudoscience.

      Defintion of sound:

      a. Vibrations transmitted through an elastic solid or a liquid or gas, with frequencies in the approximate range of 20 to 20,000 hertz, capable of being detected by human organs of hearing.

      b. Transmitted vibrations of any frequency.

      c. The sensation stimulated in the organs of hearing by such vibrations in the air or other medium.

      d. Such sensations considered as a group.

      By definition, the vibrations will still be there, so sound will be there. The definition does not state that it MUST be heard by the human ear, only capable of being heard by the human ear, and that is only one definition Another definition is simply "Transmitted vibrations of any frequency".

      Only by twisting the definition of sound to enforce a necessary human perspective of sound will the sound not have occurred.

      If you put a warm beer in the fridge does it only become cold the instant when you open the fridge the next day and put your hand on it to experience the temp drop?

      This is besides the point anyway. The point is this doco has its owns answers first, then twists the truth to make it seem as if science corresponds with them.

    5. Actually a simple question, if NO ONE is there to hear it, also means NO ONE is taking measurements from any device.

      Will be in a superposition of states, the quantum indeterminacy or the observer paradox.

      The observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, such as noise. There is no single outcome unless observed or measured (collapsing the waveform).

      Since this hinges on no one was around, by that, means all sentient beings, so no, there will be no sound.

    6. Do you honestly believe that vibrations will not occur if the record button on your iphone is in the off position? This view requires belief that the whole universe exits as a purpose for the observer.

      Quantum physics does not work on large objects, only on the very small. It has been a huge frustration of physics that relativity and quantum mechanics can not be easily reconciled.

    7. by observation, i assume you mean energy input yes?

  12. Another New Age propaganda. This is not Philosophy.

  13. Open your mind. There's no need to disregard the entire documentary. Take certain aspects from it and learn. Life is about learning and expanding your mind to greater depths. You would be asinine to agree with everything that's said and not process it on your own levels, but it would be equally as foolish to be ignorant and totally disregard everything said.

  14. This is one of the more asinine things I've listened to. Wrong on every level.

  15. Actually quite annoying that I was fooled to think I could actually learn something from this film. What a waste of time.

  16. Beyond Reason? ...or circumventing reason? The later is more like it. Believe what you will, matters not to me, but don't drag down reason and science in the name of your beliefs that require a "leap of faith" or a twisting of logic...

  17. Belief is a definition of ignorance. Seeing is all there is.

  18. I suppose that this is some pretty cool nerdy stuff.

  19. Science, er truth, is/are theories that have not been proven wrong yet.

    1. science is not truth... only truth is ttruth.. if science matches the truth then the science is correct, if it doesnt then its not.

      ''i am''... is true

      ''i am made of energy and matter that combines into consciousness'' is sceince and may be true.. but its not confirmed absolutely yet.

  20. All of you who need to eat some mushrooms, smoke some weed (or better yet, DMT). Step out of the illusions of our culture, which often influences science. Modern science's research is so selective, based on what is profitable, marketable or able to shape societies' cultures the greatest. It behooves you to recognize that believing solely in the information that modern science generates, and is relayed in the media to the general public, as the only bearings available to be successful and happy in life, is myopic and stubborn.

    Free your mind.

    And oh yeah, for god's sake, stop taking prescription psycho-drugs and discover nutritional enlightenment.

    Peace. :)

    1. Don't take psycho-drugs but do take hallucinogens. Great advice, doctor. Nutritional enlightenment? What the heck does that mean? If you mean the advice that all nutritionists, backed by all the scientific and medical fields concerning a balanced diet, then yes, seek nutritional enlightenment. It is a theme scientific research has validated since I was in school, back in the sixties. Oh, I do know about the hallucinogens. I have done most of them...acid, mushrooms, peyote, mescaline and I've smoked the weed. I am smart enough to know that good "sight" does not necessarily mean deep insight.

      Another one of those people who can't seem to see the distinction between science and the application of science. There is a difference. One is the search for pure knowledge, the other is taking that knowledge and using it to develop products for consumption.

      There is no over riding committee that decides what the public is allowed to know. The idea that there is a hidden repository of knowledge that is kept secret is ludicrous...and how else do you think the general public finds out about scientific advancements, anyway? By work of mouth? Or maybe through a meditative state aided by your favourite recreational drug? The media is the way we get our information about nearly everything, even the nuttiest ideas are spread via the media. Most of what you and I know or think we know has been dispensed by the media in one form or another.

      Yes, I'm sure that believing in reincarnation, or that Jesus saved my soul, or I'm destined to enjoy seventy two virgins could make my life happy and successful. Doesn't mean its true, though. Insisting that any one of the myriad of superstitions is true or must be seriously considered is myopic and stubborn. Believing anything to be true in spite of any evidence to prove the veracity of that belief is the definition of stubborn.

      Free your mind, indeed.

    2. I wouldn't say "Do drugs", and I wouldn't say the opposite. It's an individual choice. Anyhow, the MAINstream media does bias what research is shown to the mainstream public. Naturally they won't market a revolutionizing product/breakthrough/idea that might open for free or extremely cheap products with the same functions as their good selling product. It's simple logic, if you earn a lot of cash steadily, you want the flow to keep coming. Not to be replaced by some one willing to give away a product equal to their product for free. So the guys with a lot of money pay for commercials and market their product/idea/breakthrough a million times more effectively, than the one's who are willing to give it away for free. And since they are giving it away for free, they would most likely not have the money to send it on TV. Also, I wouldn't expect that if they had money and wanted to send something like that on TV, that it would go through.

    3. Of course a company that is enjoying financial success wants that success to continue. That doesn't mean that it will. Non profit organizations have challenged corporations and have had significant impact on business profits and practices and used the media to do it. One example is the tobacco industry. They were challenged by a group of people who believed that these companies were selling a harmful product. They used the media to encourage people to stop smoking and younger generations to not start. They did this with no alternative product to offer. Nothing to line their own pockets. The powerful tobacco industry has been in decline in North America due only to the efforts of non profit health organizations and using the profit driven media to promote their anti smoking campaign. This flies in the face of your complete control scenario.

      Medical breakthroughs will seldom be cost free. No one can produce a service or product and do it without some sort of financial return. We expect to get paid. We need that money to live. What determines the success of medical procedures, in the long term, is the effectiveness of those procedures. If it works, we will hear about it. It may not be immediate and results will not happen as quickly as they do in a two hour movie. Reality has shown that change appears slow, especially when the need is immediate and patience is a luxury not a virtue. Yet, when it does happen, it doesn't take a lot of time for the new paradigm to appear to have been the way things always have been.

    4. Very true, as a Diabetic I just want them to get a cure out as soon as possible but recognize the reality that no cure will be released , even if it is discovered, unless money can be made from it and so I feel a bit victimized. With cigarettes, there trying to bring out these electronic ciggs that just have pure nicotine supposedly without all the other harmful tobacco products but it doesn't replace cigarettes for consumers. People buy tobacco to roll joints and because of the subconscious "anti- hero" image of smokers that's been put out there through years of media footage. e.g. Clint Eastwood films.

    5. I think that when someone finally solves the diabetes problem, it will be released. Diabetes is extremely complex and the solution will not take place in a movie time slot. Sometimes, we want things immediately and, in your case, rightfully so, but unfortunately life doesn't always work that way.

      To give you a little hope, I will tell you what happened to my closest friend. Many years ago, he was diagnosed with hepatitis C. He was told that there was no cure and he would have to follow a certain lifestyle if he wanted to extend his life expectancy. Last year, his doctor informed him that they had developed a new drug that, if he followed the regimen strictly, would cure him. He did it and is now hep C free. He has been cured. He was fortunate. Many have died because of this disease before this cure was found. So, it does happen. The feeling of despair that you have is understandable to a certain degree but there is always the chance that new discoveries will change your prognosis. If it can happen to my friend, it can happen to you.

    6. Would you say that your drug experiences have taught you useful perspectives to look at reality that are applicable when you are sober? I think that cannabis taught me to look at life in a more physical perspectives e.g. people as physical animals as opposed to social constructs.. thinking in more practical physical ways rather than idea/ abstract based thought etc. Do you think other drugs alter perception in similar ways. I am yet to delve into psychedelics but I want to because I am open to anything that can further my development in a positive way.

    7. I don't know if it changed me or not. I can't say how I would have grown if I hadn't. I did it and, like all life experiences, it is a part of who I am. I will say the more we can experience, without doing physical or emotional harm, the more rounded a person we can become. Too many people lock themselves into a position and end up never seeing beyond the cage they've built for themselves.

  21. why is this under philosophy?!
    it's an advert for a cult...

  22. I also found that belief and the attempt to twist definitions was perhaps more accurate in describing actual science than could be expected from a creationist, but in describing how their thinking was "science" they slipped off reality just as much.

    It is quite true that logic and Scientific method will not help you arrive at Values, and much of the blurry questions they pose come down to exactly that. Discovering the mechanism of a thing is open to scientific inquiry, and making the prediction of a result of an action is, within limitations, something that can be logically determined. The value of that result, if it is good or bad, cannot get to a first cause, except as a personal preference. The details of consistent rational values, that does not fold on itself is the proper realm of religion including Vedanta, but is not exclusive of Vedanta, or any other religion.

    There are in most religions also metaphysical assertions that can be verified by scientific inquiry. If your brain is not the seat of the mind then the mechanism and location of the connection would be discoverable. If it can fly about the room without the body then that is a testable assertion.

    If on the other hand the point of the assertion is not about the thing described, but a deeper point then that is a separate issue. If you describe Murphy's Law, and make assertions about Murphy's sick humor, fiendish waiting for the time you are most vulnerable, and hatred for hubris, there is no point that the existence of an actual Murphy critter is supposed to be ascertained, but the deeper warning that you have never thought of everything and thinking you have will ensure disaster.

    There is a great deal more thought to this but it would not fit in this space.

  23. Fascinating. I can now understand the significance of Vedanta.

  24. we know nothing. accept this and true bliss will follow. maybe

  25. I enjoyed the treatise on the scientific method and couldn't disagree with anything the Feldmans said. How that led to Vedanta was quite a leap, though, and left me behind. I listened for quite a while but was quite disappointed. The promise of the documentary as being about science was not fulfilled.

  26. like diogenes proclaimed (& nietzsche picked up) 'god is dead',so why keep searching?the death of unknowing superstition gave birth to quantifiable knowledge,which in itself is scientific philosophy or philosophical science,take your pick.

  27. I actually really liked this documentary,
    I want to address a few of the negative concerns and comments people had with the film.

    1. The pipe music --

    People often claim this music is annoying, and its manipulative. But what music isn't biased in this respect?
    All Hollywood films have emotional music for movies scenes, additionally sounds have been used in real world situations to manipulate or evoke action; war (drums) for aggressive behavior, funeral music to denote sadness, even rally's like graduation music to evoke pride and accomplishment. All of these are manipulative for a cynic, but they are done to collectively and subconsciousness transmit an emotional message.
    In this respect music is deeply connected with emotion, who hasn't experienced this?

    Simply put, this pipe music is set at a constant tone, and is used to render the listener to a state of relaxation and openness. The purpose isn't to focus on the music but rather to focus on the message and allow the music to do what it was designed for to let you be more open to the ideas espoused.

    2. Bad Science --
    Many have also argued that bad science was used by the two intellectual type individuals (charlatans for those that question their legitimacy). I totally disagree with this assessment.

    After listening to their approaches, I find they have a good grasp on the basic principles behind the modern physics.
    I my self have done some basic research through alternative sources, reading books from respective physicists like Brain Cox's "the Quantum Universe", and also explore documentaries on the subject like NOVA's 'The elegant Universe series".

    What their describing mimics the historical and practical science espoused by reputable scientists in the modern field.
    Only difference is that they approach the subject from a different angle and delve deeper into the philosophical implications of these theories.

    Modern physicist however don't do this, they aren't philosophers and don't pretend to be.
    What they are good at is to rely on the mathematics to make predictions on patterns that can relied on; a.k.a It can be tested, predicted and utilized and opens the door to strange new questions in the frontiers of science ('M' theory, String theory, parallel Universes, Time Paradoxes, etc...)
    Yet they never ask the philosophical questions, because this is devoid from their way of thinking,
    So where are the Plato's that use this knowledge to muse about the questions of life? reality? spirituality? Meaning?
    These Greek thinkers are revered today, yet unfortunately not their methods. But why?

    In other words, I don't believe the science these two intellectuals are espousing is wrong, or even bad, (not like a christian who claims the earth was created in 7 days based on a book)
    Rather they are attempting to take the science accumulated by mainstream and merely interpretative it from a different perspective, one that is less interested in the rigid objective dogmatic belief in numbers and re-orient the foundational edifice in which science used to be based; knowledge.
    This has NOTHING to do with the science itself, and everything to do with the theories and understanding of the fundamental questions of science.

    3. Monks -

    The Monks bring in another dimension to this documentary.
    Just like a modern physicist working in the field of string theory, monks are alternatively at the forefront of their field; spirituality (*not religion).

    Their words are deep, personal, wise and clear. Through spiritual practices of meditation, yoga and inner soul searching they have become experts in philosophical questions, often juxtaposed to logical questions of western science.
    They search for personal growth, better understanding, happiness, joy, peace, confidence, calm and relaxation.
    The evidence of their success is meta-physical and personal.
    Monk's search for answers inward, whereas science pursues it outwardly.
    Who can honestly say, which is these approaches are truer? its all relative,

    However, unlike most organized religions, the insights and philosophical revelations of these monks may be applied to the deeper questions that science is investigating. they very rarely contradict scientific but rather might even enhance them working interchangeably to augment both fields (spirituality and science).

    At it's heart this documentary was attempting to do just that,
    find a balance between the two.

    1. I really like your comment about science as this is the best relation between science and general public that one can imagine at present time. But still I would criticize on the bad science interpretation, especially about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, as they are painfully inaccurate. An example is the interpretation of measurement and wave function collapse. These has nothing to do with human consciousness at all. The wave function collapse can happen without any human intervention or even without any artificial measurement device at all. It is true that inner mechanism of wave function collapse is still not 100% clear, but there are progressing theory (called decoherence) to explain almost all observed behavior of such phenomenon.

    2. @ Luyang Han,

      I really appreciate the comment concerning the bad science, especially the refrence to decoherence.
      I did a quick investigation on decoherence theory, and it appears to me that it's just another way to describe the same phenomenon, one which does not offer a solution.
      Instead what it ascertains is that the environment has been changed and thus collapses the wave function, this is in a similar vein to the 'entanglement' issue.Nevertheless it doesn't answer how our viewing, measuring, observation of said environment able to change something so radically? How can just viewing something change matter? (patterns, field, environment, or anything).

      Although I admit that I've only took a fleeting glance at dechorence and might have misunderstood the theory, it offers very little answers and leaves the question open

      I recall reading an article where someone attempted to observe the quantum particle (measure) without causing a wave collapse, and they were successful in the experiment.
      But the method was done in a 'sneaky' way(sorry if my description of the experiment is vague)
      Ultimately while they were successful in the experiment, it again failed to address why the wave collapsed at all in the first place!. It's so counter-intuitive to logical though.

      If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, then our observation of the quantum universe that has a reaction must mean that our observation, measurement or conscious interpretation must be by definition an action?

      Anyways, I'm seriously curious about these types of questions, and feel I need to do more research,
      I beseech you to send me some links pertaining to the Quantum collapse (articles, books, etc)


  28. I enjoyed the doc, after brushing some things aside (as with any docs), i felt i was left with lots of words that made a lot of sense to me.
    But then that's me.
    The Felder brothers (i suppose), do have a grasp on the philosophy of science and i am not sure what part of what they say is debated so drastically here.
    As for the monks they use a monk language used by monks for eons. What they mean exactly is very subtle, i suppose you got to be a monk to correlate it to science.

    1. Maybe that's got something to do with their vow of silence thing... they're learning the monk lingo. ;)

  29. I see.Adressing the questions HOW or WHAT or WHY,Science does not approach the WHY.Science examines physical realities and hence,is limited to empirical laws and the limit of our observations.This doc is not about Metaphysics as it is about Philosophy.In the search for TRUTH,it is futile to quantify it using the mechanics of science.That is absurd.This presentation is entirely semantic to me

  30. Eeek.After examining the comment box,I may give this one a miss.Is it truly that vapid and unsubstantial?Oh well.Only one way to find out,I suppose.To wit,the only way I'll ever know anything..into the fray once again

  31. These guys have poor understandings of science and are representing it poorer still. Many of the questions that they suggest science can't answer have already been answered or are at least current fields of study. And yeah, that pipe music is like crack for hippies which is why they put it in. Vulnerable and impressionable people fall for this s*it, when armed with knowledge one can resist such bulls*it.

  32. Metaphysics is nonsense and modern science doesn't prove anything they claim it does in this doc. "Beyond Reason" a New Age attack on science every bit as based in an unobservable and completely unknowable gobble-de-gook and superstition. It's no better than the arguments of the fundamentalists and needs to be understood as such. There needs to be a documentary that *clearly* explains what the philosophy of materialism is and what it isn't. I'd love to watch it.

  33. philosophy is a tool that helps to think out of the box which sometimes has helped science to take a different angle of perspective...they should complement themselves where it helps & negated if one of them proclaims to be the full truth.always loved that idea as it remembers us that we are born with limited senses & are discovering worlds behind those limitations.....
    great times to be living in!
    ...haven't seen this doc though.

  34. I’ve not watched this doc yet but read quite a few of the comments, some excellent and some a little narrow minded. But it’s all these comments that are my motivation to watch this so thanks to you all for that. I’ll watch it straight after posting this. When I look for a doc to watch I often look for what I call a spaark of interest, you know the gut feeling that tells you this could be good or worth watching at least, time is precious after all. I get quite the opposite feeling about this doc, it just feels bad? No rationality, no logic, just pure instinct. I read the doc description before any comments were made and though I don’t mind the donation option the text is disconcerting and strangely unpleasant to me. However I’m hoping I can watch this with open mind and see if my opinion changes.

    The Crucified One

    1. Ok maybe I’m psychic but I didn’t enjoy this at all. The incessant pipe music is extremely imitating and the whole doc seems more infotainment than information. There was nothing new for me here anyway. It has some good points about our search for truth, knowledge and understanding etc but these are overridden by cheesy production values and an almost disrespect of science. Overall the doc seemed insincere and I don’t think I’ll be checking out the others in the trilogy after this. But if it makes one person question their perhaps dogmatic approaches to life it will have done a good job so maybe it is not entirely useless.

      Check out Waking Life for what I think is a much better and more honest explanation of reality versus dream states and the illusory nature of the world around us. It’s got a good soundtrack too.

      The Crucified One

  35. I am totally confused at how most of the people approach science, except for some voices of reason like Jack1952 and fl260. To think that science is limited in its approach towards reality is saying that why doesn’t a child of 6 months start running or talking about quantum mechanics. Science is a progressive scheme, and anyone claiming that in a single swoop they can learn and know it all is the greatest self-deception. In fact there is no short cut to ultimate knowledge, if there is we humans after lots of trial and error have come to this very crud and limited but to a great extent workable method.

    And just for a second stare at the device right before your eyes and the box connected to this, now try explaining it with some meditation, devine, vedic or esoteric wisdom. Something will surly remind you that these archaic methods lack the basic framework to explain the existing reality, let alone the transcendental. Secondly to drag philosophy for making senseless ideas is another path human have traveled again and again. Philosophy is there to address the basic and at the same time the most over-arching questions, not the sciences, religions or ideals.

  36. Yet again, a religion/philosophy is trying to leverage the esoteric depths of science to somehow prove, or at least legitimize their particular agenda. The frequent use of words like "energy" and "quantum" are the telltale signs, as used by charlatans like Deepak Chopra and Wayne Dyer. They either state or imply that because something quite strange (to us) can happen at the quantum level , then anything, in our middle-sized Newtonian world, is possible if we only mystically focus our mind somehow. There seems to be a quid pro quo approach of:

    "Well, if the quantum world of the very small is so irrational, we can present something just as irrational, just take our word for it."

    The pervading thread of themes like this contain too many logical fallacies to count, make claims that can not be substantiated, and are potentially fraudulent. A classic example is What the Bleep do we Know?"

    Philosophy and meditation are very real and powerful tools to re-balance ourselves in a very unbalanced world and have proven, verifiable benefits. It it disturbs however, me to see to see wild claims from another supposed panacea, which preys on dissatisfaction and wish fulfillment, no matter how honorable their intentions are. At best, it is a distraction even if it provides a measure of comfort.

    Science, with all its flaws, is based on reality. Its temporary or permanent limitations do not somehow validate an imagined, so-called alternate reality, however attractively it may be presented. It is a non sequitur

    Many of us are very hungry, but we should not settle for stale bread. Having an open mind should not mean discarding critical thinking.

    Believing is not the same as knowing. Faith is a polite word for gulliblilty.

    A better, and more rational approach to morality, philosophy etc., IMHO, is the collective writings and lectures of Sam Harris and Daniel Dennet, to name just a couple of great minds who confront deep questions with their feet planted firmly on the ground

    1. Bravo, bravo- well said friend!!!

    2. I could hardly say it better myself. Yet another video about people pretending to know things they don't know. A 90 minute fools errand in search for a so-called "ultimate truth."

  37. Its God. God made everything that is Good.

  38. I actually found this film to be spot on. It is simple. Science has boundaries that it can never penetrate. Science can never, ever, ever prove the existence of reincarnation. Ever. Impossible. Does this mean reincarnation doesn't exist? Does it mean it does? It doesn't mean anything except that Modern Science has limitations. I thought this film does a good job of illustrating this in simple terms. The first question in the movie said it best. If everything you know is based on a lie, how would you get out of that illusion? All your thoughts, all your concepts, all your ideas stem from that lie so as long as you don't recognize the lie, you will always be stuck.

    1. Well, that is simple. If you cannot falsify an argument, you simply stop to seriously talk about it, because it does not make any difference if it is true or not, it is just irrelevant. In such statement there is 0 physical information according to Shannon. For the first question of universal illusion, well, it only matters if one can find a single solid evidence of the illusion, thus to falsify the perceived reality. If the illusion is so perfect that all the perceived reality behaves consistently and it is never possible to reveal such illusion aka. to falsify, then what is the practical difference between saying it is illusion or reality?

      In this sense yes, science has boundary as it refuses to argue anything which cannot be falsified, such as reincarnation.

    2. It would seem then that you missed the entire point of the film. In your system of science, reincarnation may be irrelevant (which unfortunately is too bad, because it explains every thing from evolution to epilepsy) but don't impose your dogma on other people lest you will begin to start to sound like a fundamentalist christian (are you one?).

      As the film points out, there are many branches of science, with Modern Science just being one (and apparently the one that you seem to be currently stuck in).

      It never ceases to amaze me when "scientists", such as yourself, claim that reincarnation is irrelevant when it is your intellect, which as taken hundreds, if not thousands of lifetimes to form, has been able to evolve to the point where it has the capacity to argue in the first place because of reincarnation.

      Well, like my daddy always said, never argue with an i*iot, people won't be able to tell the difference so on that note, I'm signing off.

    3. For anyone reading this post and thinking that maybe this guy knows what is talking about, please reconsider. Reincarnation does not explain evolution. Evolution is a scientific concept and is explained quite nicely, scientifically. No need for the muddled concept of reincarnation. How could reincarnation explain epilepsy after one has had brain trauma, a stroke, brain cancer, or abused drugs and alcohol extensively? It is totally illogical.

      Can't prove it but you know it exists....and you call Luyang Han names? I thought he made perfect sense. I don't doubt you won't discuss your stance. You really don't have much of an argument except to call names and belittle.

    4. There's really no arguing with you either, is there Jack? You seem to have it all figured out. You're right. Darwin's theory is complete, just the way it is. No need to extend it to incorporate reincarnation. All of this amazing biological diversity that we have on this planet, with all of its beauty and sophistication is based on genetic mutations. Yes?

      Just to be clear, you're saying that just because something can not be falsified means then it is irrelevant? And that makes perfect logical sense to you? What an amazing intellect you must have.

      Err, I think that's why the film is called Beyond Reason Jack. Get out of your head, you might learn something.

      But I think what I really love about people like you is when you make these proclamations "don't listen to this person". It's not so much that you wish to remain spiritually ignorant, but that you want to make sure others stay that way too. Isn't this the same as the allegory of Platos' cave?

    5. Really, that is your amazing come back? (LOL) Yeah, see this is why you guys continually lose every debate- because you have no real facts or evidence to site, all you can do is insult people and accuse them of being closed minded. Its not working, people see through it pal. There is a huge difference between being closed minded an suspending critical thought, if you were capable of realizing that difference you would realize how pathetic your rants sound.

    6. You certainly aren't the one winning any debates.

    7. In Plato's cave, one is chained facing the wall and sees flickering shadows all over it but has no idea what they are or mean. Plato puts out the idea that philosophy is the key to understanding what those shadows are. Plato was an intelligent man but was constricted by the fact that he lived in the times he did. If he lived today he would be exposed to the idea of the scientific method. He could see that this offers more than just the ability to think. It offers the key to break loose from those chains and turn around and see what those shadows are. One can observe, measure, poke, experiment and then using his intellect, his ability to think, come up with a rational explanation of what those shadows are and mean. He is no longer constrained by what his thoughts alone can produce.

      You say that reincarnation cannot be proved or falsified. In other words, you are still facing the wall watching the shadows. You like your explanation and will not turn around to see what those shadows actually are. If you were honest enough to admit that you believe in reincarnation because it satisfies a personal longing in your life, that it gives you comfort, I could respect that. I cannot respect that you feel we should all face the wall and never turn around and that those who do, deserve to be called idi0ts because they now give up the comfort of their belief system which may be a lot nicer than reality.

      When I say that I try to live my life with optimism, I am offering a personal philosophy. When I say that when I die, I will return in another life, I am stating fact...not a philosophy at all. It is either true or it isn't. If it is impossible to prove or falsify, how does one know it exists? It might as well be irrelevant.

    8. You're already starting to sound like a dogmatic christian.

    9. EXACTLY!

      Arguing anything you could possibly think of is what Science is trying to battle with everyday...

      Does God exist? Just coz we can't prove it doesn't mean he/she doesn't?

      WHAT ELSE!!


      Get real, people.

      Science rules!

  39. On a more sarcastic note, the maker of documentary cannot shove his ideas subliminally by explaining the modern science with two guys in a bland office like environment and his own ideology with colorful natural environment. Again these things make one more suspicious.

    Just another opinion, I think Japanese anime movies and series work far better in presenting an alternate to the deep questions of life then this.

  40. Come on guys, we as human race have move beyond this. Its just like arguing that Greek way of thinking is better then modern scientific method. I accept the modern western philosophy has lots of short comings, but vadic or all these other archaic ideas are well suited for social sciences. The trouble is this documentary tries to intermingle anthropology, shamanism, social philosophy and religious ideas with modern science.

  41. @ fl260


    I just thought I would add that I agree with you when you say people often dismiss Buddhism as dogma or even worse religion. I’m not a Buddhist either but I’ve delved around this philosophy and found much to be applauded. Buddhism has many great qualities but one I really admire and practice is meditation. I like to think this helps me examine myself and the universe around me.

    Your post reminded me of Nietzsche “The will to a system shows a lack of integrity”

    I would be interested in any other thoughts you have on your obsession with honesty? I am a huge liar though ;-)

    The Crucified One

    1. Are you lying? Come on, honestly... are you lying? ;-)

    2. @imightberiding

      "Are you lying? Come on, honestly... are you lying?"

      I might be... I might be telling the truth? Honestly? I too am fascinated by the concept of honesty but not at all obsessed with it as @fl260 said he was. So on that occasion I was telling the truth but the fact remains I am huge liar ;-)

      The Crucified One

  42. This doc just proves again that philosophy is obsolete. Philosophy always tries to promote itself as some super knowledge above everything but in fact it is merely the efforts of understanding the world by pure speculation. Every philosopher has his fancy idea which are unfalsifiable. Science is another step forward from philosophy by realizing all the speculation must be hold on a common ground, the scientific methods. Frankly, has philosophy really discovered anything real? Can anyone imagine that philosophy would help us understand superconductivity? And it is simply arrogant trying to interpret quantum mechanics without knowing how to solve Schöndiger's equation.

    1. I can think of something real which philosophy has discovered, its called science, which came out of natural philosophy. I suggest you try learning about the philosophies of Aristotle and Pythagoras.

    2. I see your point, but I disagree that philosophy is obsolete. Any decent philosopher wouldn't say there is a fancy singular idea or set of ideas that is unfalsifiable.

      I can see how it could seem that philosophy, especially in comparison to the scientific method, seems like it could be defined as the pursuit of some exact map of understanding of the universe. But as Socrates would say, true knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing.

      Even 2 millennia ago, humans ascertained that ones understanding of the world was a concept that was fluid and changing, well before the scientific revolution.

      Think about it in terms of science. It's not uncommon when a new discovery destroys the old understanding of a phenomena, ie the Copernican Revolution. The awareness that all knowledge is incomplete (thus far) acts as the engine of progress.

      That is where I see philosophy still having relevance in our lives. Where science may leave us with incredible factual data and increasing technology, we as humans still have to negotiate the implications those things.

      And Schrödinger's cat is, in fact, a thought experiment after all. It was asking a question about the state of reality in relation to physics.

    3. Partly agreed. Science is never complete of course and it never claims what discovered now is the truth in philosophical term. From my perspective it is better understood as the current best model to explain the inner mechanism of physical world. It never refuses new explanations as long as it can be falsified. In fact, easier to falsified argument carries more important significance in science.

      I am not against philosophy in interpreting science per se but 1. One should clearly realize that interpret is not within scientific method. 2. Interpret should be based on solid understanding of science itself.

      And Schrödinger's cat is not merely thought experiment, physicist is now putting entangled state to ever larger systems, I think right now up to thousands of atoms. Not a cat yet, but it is progressing.

    4. Damn, all these years of receiving seemingly genuine & appreciative nods & heartfelt laughter of a deeper knowing than the average genius at my interpretation of quantum mechanics & it turns out that: unless the answer to "Schondiger's equation" is 3, (I don't even know how to put those little dots above the "o" in his name) it appears that all those people; business colleagues, potential employees & employers, at countless cocktail parties, dinners, nightclubs, conference luncheons, power meetings at strip clubs & even sunday morning church have been laughing at me, not with me!

      Who knew I'd come across as so arrogant? Ah man... screw philosophy!

    5. Don't worry about it, Luyang Han spelled the name wrong anyway, it is supposed to be (Schrodinger's equation) lol.

    6. Ah, yes. Finally someone who noticed the incorrect spelling of the name. Kind of disqualified the remainder of his intellectual masturbation. He did however correct his spelling in later posts.

      I trust you recognized my somewhat failed attempt at humour throughout my sarcastic responses to comments made by those who may perhaps have a proclivity towards taking themselves too seriously. Humour, more often than not goes unseen in these emotionless forums.


    7. I noticed the incorrect took an effort of will to dismiss my inner grammer/spelling nazi and ignore it! ;-)

      Edit: Lol! Now my 'grammer' nazi tells me I mispelled 'grammar'!

    8. It is almost always best to exercise that will. In a lifetime of spectacular failures I have found that the most reliable of things in my life is: immediately after pointing out another's mistake(s) I promptly fall flat on my face. The example of your comment, which you immediately owned up to, is a perfect example. ;-) I have often thought a better name for myself would be: Imightbestumbling or Imightbetakingmyfootoutofmymouth. I liked AntiTheist666's remark about Imightbelaughing.

      As per the title of this film, our lives along with our actions are more often than we prefer Beyond Reason. Thought I better sneak at least a token of relevance towards the topic of the doc into one of my comments.


    9. Lol :D

      Subtle. I thought the answer to “Schrodinger’s equation” was 42?

    10. No, that's the answer to the question of life, the universe and everythi...oh, wait...So long, and thanks for the fish!

    11. You actually saw the humour I was attempting in my posts. Sarcasm & biting whit is unfortunately lost it the typed medium & the serious nature of people's opinions.

      Do I honestly think I am funny? I could lie to you & say no, but would that be an honest assessment of myself?


    12. You’re welcome and thank you for that ever so delicate and delicious tiny morsel you left. Funny? I would say your assessment is not only honest but correct and entirely justified. I loved your karma/dogma skit so much I’ll probably steal it, screw morality! Your humour is definitely far superior to the usual cheapie cheapie 5$ stuff. Keep em coming I might be laughing.

      The Crucified One

    13. Thanks for your vote of confidence. The karma/dogma is yours to use as much as mine or anyone else. I was recalling a bumper sticker or "T" shirt or some such thing I saw years ago. Alas that was not my original wit but it was brought to mind by fl260's musings.

    14. ah,the good ole hitchhiker manual...

    15. it's schrödinger...paste & copy.german keyboard has 'Ö',so i thought i pop you a copy of 'schrödinger' for future use

    16. If copy&paste is not your style, try Alt+0246, et voilá: an ö is blössöming. : D

  43. Their attempt to explain what science is and isn't seems to include some limited absolutistic statments that also seem to counter themselves. I suspect they are trying so hard to explain science they run out of explainations.
    But I always distrust when someone seems to be trying too hard to convince me of something.

  44. Was waiting for a Lake Placid moment at the beginning and the pan pipes are a little off-putting but it seemed like it might be interesting. Can't get it to play past about 20 minutes though, hope you have better luck :)

  45. At about the forty minute mark, I was suddenly hit with a wave of enlightenment. This is an info-mercial!!! They want my money. Although the "What if everything that you have ever been taught is based on a lie?" (paraphrased) question, along with the appeal for a "small donation" in the description should have rung all my alarm bells, I started to watch, anyway. It took awhile but I finally got it.

    That new age guy on the flute for the first half hour sure got annoying. Nothing against the flute, just the style of music being employed in the film.

    1. @Jack1952,

      Just to clarify, the author (Frank Huguenard) has three of his films posted at TDF. He never asked for any linking whatsoever, except for his last film (this one), with an explanation that he's hoping to get at least some donations to offset production costs.

      And I think it's not a big deal. The film is for free. If someone happen to like it he can donate dollar or two, if not, that is perfectly OK.

      P.S. I don't agree with the content of the film.

    2. Although, I was being a little facetious in my remarks, those swami types have a tendency to arouse my suspicious nature. I know a few people who have been bilked by swamis, including an ex-wife, for ever escalating sums of money. Paying child support so she could give it to a charlatan was more than a little irritating. Fortunately, she saw reason before she sold her house.

      Frank Huguenard may well be an honourable guy but I would advise people to take caution when getting involved with ideas of this type. Not everything is as it seems. Never hurts to keep your eyes open.

  46. What a complete and utter disappointment. After reading the intro, and with the name of the title, I was really looking forward to this. I wish I had not. The background music is the same rubbish droning through the whole documentary. This bizarre attempt at trying to mix Hinduism and science just doesn't work. Taking modern science, then trying to apply retro ideas from the dark ages to it simply cannot work. These guys ramble on forever without actually ever making a valid or useful point. Vague attempts at trying to redefine science to fit their point of view are thwarted by them not actually having a point view. Or any valid point for that matter. Arrrgghhh ..... I was really hoping for something meaningful....
    Either Way, Thank you Vladko for an excellent site!

  47. The music sadly makes this film lose all credibility from the outset.

  48. perhaps he is not promoting a religion at all... perhaps he is merely pointing out that the religion of science doesn't seem to have it all right either... just what we were able to conclude given our limited capacity... while our answers may be right to a certain degree doesn't mean we have come up with the best possible solution... that a better way may be out there if we were to unchain ourselves from the constraints of imposed thinking...

    1. Science is not a religion. This film describes what science is quite nicely. It is a method of obtaining knowledge through experimentation and observation so one can achieve a reliable prediction. When it all meshes we have the basis for a law of science. That's not religion. It's similar to getting the correct answer to a math question. Certain steps should always render the same outcome.

  49. Are you promoting any "particular" religion here since your primary point seems to be in this video that we can't rely on science to answer all of our questions?

    1. No, definitely not. I am only promoting self-inquiry. There are many disciplines of self inquiry, but the one with the most stringent and legitimate pedigree is Vedanta. There are several organizations currently providing Vedanta in the US and abroad. Vipassana, Self Realization Fellowship, Transcendental Meditation and Art of Living. The underpinnings of all these organizations is Vedanta but my personal recommendation would be Art of Living but that is up to you.

    2. (just before starting, you may excuse my potential bad english... first language is french, so I am making an effort here..)

      First, Vlatko did not make this documentary himself.
      Second, you don't need any religion to note that science cannot answer all of the questions.

      Science is the domain of the "how does it work", but we also need to answer the questions "should we do it or not".

      Paradox with science is that to work at it's full potential, it would have to get rid of the human consciousness, in order to be fully objective.

      And paradox with pure faith is that it has to get rid of facts to work at it's best potential.

      I am not buddhist (I think a person who needs to condiser him/herself buddhist to practice its philosophy didn't understand a thing about it) but we have to admit there is some interesting keys in that philosophy.

      First, it works just like science. It works by observation and experimentation. If a fact contradicts one of its views, then it adapts, like science does.
      The only difference it has from science is that it will also accept evidences that comes from contemplation. For example, if you note that greed and jealousy only leeds to suffering, and other people around you note the same, then you will count it as a fact.

      Science cannot go there. Science has nothing to do with our "inner" world of observations.

      Problem is not buddhism. The real problem is dogma. At any level. Some buddhists will fall into the trap of mental comfort, then laziness. Eventually, they will look at things for what they want them to be, rather than for what they are truly.

      Dogma appears everywhere. In religion, philosophy, science, politics, in our everyday relationship...

      Dogma, to me, is nothing else than mental comfort. It's to think that you got all the keys to adress any observations and all the problems. Like I say often "It is more comfortable to find your way in the disorder than to get lost in the order".
      We like comfort, we are craving for it.
      We're looking for a model to apply in our life that will work for any given situations. But that will never happen.

      This is why Buddha said "be your own light". Or if you prefer "do not let others think for your eyes".
      But this is a lot to ask.
      We don't want to be intelligent, conscious... We want to put someone in power that is himself "intelligent" and "conscious", so we don't have to think about it anymore. The pope, a president, a leader, a figure of authority...

      This is why, again, Buddha said "Don't listen and believe in what I say just because you respect me. Take my words like you would take a gold nugget and smash them against a rock, melt them, put them to the test... If it really is gold, then you will know for yourself."

      Who were the last person to say that? This is truly the contrary of a dogma.

      So buddhism is not about "having faith" or "believing".
      Its really about "knowing".

      And that is huge.

      People will often criticize buddhism, or at least they think they are, but it's never the case. They will criticize what they think buddhism is, or what they've heard of it.
      But to criticize buddhism, at it's core, is just like criticizing science.

      Its non-sense.
      How can you be against a fact?
      How can you contradict reality?

      There is only one possible answer :
      Because you are stuck in your dogma.
      Whether it be your particular religion, your personnal philosophy, or 'science'.
      Like I said, people like to have a model that they can use to observe the universe through, so they can stop being active from there, and become passive.

      So again, you don't need any religion to understand that science indeed has its limits. You just have to be honest with observations.

      And no, I'm not lying when I say I am not buddhist! If ever I say it, it will mean I will have fallen in a dogma!

      (hope that was at least understandable!)

    3. @fl260

      I agree with much that you say, especially about science trying to be purely objective and buddhism being a philosophy and not a religion. I would not feel offended if anyone called me a buddhist, although I am not one either. I disagree if you mean to say that buddhism in its true form is dogmatic.

      And I have to disagree when you say "We don't want to be intelligent, conscious." I'd like to be both. But I would not want power nor anyone to have power over me.

    4. Thanks for the reply, always appreciated.

      Of course I don't think that buddhism in its true form is dogmatic. It's the exact contrary. Those who needs a model to apply in their life without having to think about it will make it so.
      The general answer is that there is no general answer, at least when it comes to explaining one's life (because with the universe it seems that it's not the case).

      And when I say "We don't want to be intelligent, conscious", it's a provocation. Because of course we want to be, but to what extent are we ready to really commit ourselves?
      Personally, that's why I'm obsessed by the concept of honesty. I use that word cause I think everything is about it : how much are you truly honest with what you believe, what you think you believe and what you want to believe. Some people think honesty is only about two people making an exchange of some kind, but personally I think it's mainly between us making an exchange of some kind with the "universe" (hate to talk like that, it sounds esoteric for some reason..)

      Again, hope that was understandable!

    5. @fl260
      Ne t'inquiète pas, c'était merveilleusement compréhensible. ; )

      Your comments are highly appreciated as well.

    6. Those comments can only boost my confidence. Thank you!

    7. @fl260

      Very well said , an excellent post. And if english is not your first language I can only imagine how eloquent you would be in French. Bravo!

      The Crucified One

    8. Finally someone who understands me!
      C'est incommensurablement apprécié, merci!

    9. Your English is better than a lot of people who speak English as their primary language or who speak it exclusively.

    10. I have never encountered a buddhist who proselytizes. Then again, you're "not" a buddhist. Mostly as a result of my unfortunate religious upbringing I usually confront, criticize or just ignore comments or discussions pertaining to any & all things religious.

      You will notice however that I did click the like response for your comment. This is entirely unprecedented on my part.

      I enjoyed your comment on two fronts. One, it was sensible & two your "second" language skills are impressive to say the least.

      It's also personally refreshing to note that I'm usually the long winded one in the comments. You surpassed me uncontested today. Looks like your karma ran right over my dogma! Badda Bing Badda Boom! Thank you, goodnight! ;-) See what I did there?

    11. Now, now little Timmy. I've noticed a few of your posts in the past so it is safe to say you are not new to this site. With that said, you should know better than to presume such ridiculous things about our friend & giver of wondrous knowledge & information: Vlatko.

      I am also well aware that he certainly does not require me or anyone else to defend him. I only replied to your comment because it was wrong in so many ways.

      Just curious, is your moniker a result of the sucky comments you post or are your comments a function of your moniker?

      Sucky Sucky 5 dolla!

    12. thanks for the 'gag'...pee'd myself.

    13. Vlatko didn't make the movie man, he just posted a link to it. Frank Huguenard is the maker and I have spoken with him personally via telephone and e-mail. No, he is not promoting any particular religion, he is trying to make money- period. I contacted him in hopes of learning a bit more about meditation, but all he wanted to do was sell his services as a life coach, whatever that is. As soon as he figured out he couldn't scam for a few thousand he told me I was bringing him down, (LOL), and ended our conversation.
      It was so unbelievably obvious what he is up to- he has figured out that many desperate people are susceptible to being scammed for their money by those that claim to have some kind of semi-scientific, spiritual knowledge of the universe. He really should be ashamed for not telling people like myself to seek real medical and psychiatric care, or at least that he can't help them. But all he wants is money so if your payin he's stayin.

    14. I wrote my post before I saw yours so I feel my gut instincts were right somehow, thanks for the info.

    15. Thanks for the info. After reading another post about the pipe music it reminded me that I have watched (or tried) one of his other videos as I remember the music to be annoying. I will skip this one and the rest and find something more believable to watch. I watch alot of videos while cleaning the house and taking care of my kids so can't waste any time on shisters. ;)

    16. @waldo
      your comment should be placed directly under the description as a warning for the 'you-know-whos'.

  50. second at last after being first for a long time