CM wrote:

What have you got against reality?

What have I got against reality? I respond knowing full well that the
question wasn't directed at me and knowing that what I say may not be
understood by you, especially in its fullness. Absolutely nothing, would
be my response. I do have, however, a problem with your definition and
concept of reality. You would fail any real philosophical debate. What
humans deem as reality is often a figment of their dogmatic, restrictive
and not so bright imaginations. In other words, the so-called real world
is a world of illusion. Substance lies within that which is real, not that
which is illusionary and but an interpretation of perception.

When will humans learn that life, the Universe and everything is not
subservient to their preconceptions? It's the 21st century and humans are
still caught in their silly notions of things and imagine that they are
the original fashioners of the Universe and of life itself. What I mean by
this, if you do not understand what I am getting at, is that Truth is not
subservient to human concepts. Delusions galore exist in the mental life
of humanity. It's virtually impossible to intelligently converse with a
human. To do so requires the Herculean task of trying to penetrate a
coagulated mess of mental density and preconceived notions.

What of science? What science? What actually is science? That which you
call science is the complete opposite of real science. In fact, your much
lauded and hallowed science is a mockery of real science. Rather is it a
combination of a little science and a lot of human nonsense intertwined
with arrogance. Inasmuch as I would like to see a real science exhibited,
I cannot see it nor can I see it happening for a very long time. The
pomposity of humans has to be overcome. Science hasn't been the
interpreter of nature, it's been the dogmatiser of nature according to
human perception and conception.