I ignored your original comment on purpose knowing it didn't follow the esoteric characteristics of the discussion even while maintaining the facade of informing me. You are repeating the same pattern yet again, but now about things that are not even on the table, and I am left wondering whether you follow Sam's neurophilosophic discussions at all.

The research quoted above and neurophilosophy in general, use the epistemological definition of subjectivity while you are still stuck in the ontological definition. I.e, Nobody is talking about life after death or being able to see 'string vibrations'. The conversation is on conscious perception of reality, and considering how we are at the geocentric phase of neurphilosphical evolution, it is safe to conclude we don't know jack shit about how consciousness arises or its precise relationship to objective reality.

I mean seriously, if you think the altering brain states to see a more accurate representation of reality to be childish, then you must think Donal Hoffman's notion of qualia not being homomorphisms of objective reality to be batshit crazy. Annaka edited his book and she and Sam Harris talked an entire episode about this. Why don't you help mature up Sam Harris so that he is not wasting time talking about how objective reality is completely different from our subjective experiences?

You offer absolutely nothing valuable to discussion and funnily enough, you are so utterly deluded on your own intellectual capabilities that you went an extra step to gift wrap this awful piece of nothingness in pure repulsive condescension. It's comically ironical.