Emergent Theory only a hypothesis; not even a scientific theory.
Note the qualifier: 'higher', as in 'higher than Reason, Logic, or Analysis'. Therefore cannot be proven via such means. Not something resident in any of those boxes, and yet, is exactly what allows those boxes to function. Can only be directly experienced, without thought. You are urged to go see for yourself, however, for perfect verification beyond any doubt, just as the skeptical prisoners in Plato's Cave would have to go see The Sun for themselves.
What do you think evidences are?
Evidence is something that can be experienced. Evidence is something that can be observed, detected, measured, tested.
Empirical evidences mean having more than one evidence, to verify and validate if the hypothesis or theory is true, OR refute or debunk them if it is false.
You are contradicting yourself.
You say that what you do is direct experience and nonlocal, and so on, but whenever someone present you with explanation plus evidences, you dismiss it, as if it is not direct enough.
I have only seen evidences that consciousness required a brain and any one or number of sensory organs (eg eyes, ears, nose, tongue, etc).
Do you remember my example, where I told you I have worked at rehabilitation centre, where some of the residents/patients suffered from brain damages, due to the trauma of car accidents?
When their brains are impaired, so are their consciousness impaired. For instance, a comatose person or unconscious one.
There are medicine and illegal substances (drugs) that can also affect a person's consciousness.
What I haven't seen is a person having or reaching higher consciousness. And what I haven't seen the universe being "conscious".
You say that reality can only be experienced directly and nonlocal, but I say that your whole nonlocal and non-dual perception, or "higher consciousness" are nothing more than your deluded fantasy, where you try to twist reality to fit in with your baseless concept.
If I am sounding harsh, is because I am very blunt person, who is brutally frank, and I cannot change that.
You are right, emergent theory isn't a scientific theory. It isn't even a scientific hypothesis.
A hypothesis in science, is not merely guesswork or speculation. Before a formulation of any new hypothesis, the hypothesis come from the idea. But that idea don't come nowhere, but just the mind.
No, the idea, come from preliminary observation. When a scientist start formulating his hypothesis, he (or she) is trying to explain the preliminary observed phenomena, and then make predictions.
So a hypothesis comprised of explanation and prediction(s). And those predictions are use to gauge whether the explanations are correct or not, and the only way to do that is to determine is the hypothesis is falsifiable or not, and to test the hypothesis' predictions, through evidences or experiments. Hence the testing performed is one of the those observations, a mean of refuting or verifying the hypothesis.
In another word, these tests, experiments and evidences are mean of "to experience".
Any hypothesis that is untestable, are considered pseudoscience.
Your emergent theory regarding to "Higher Consciousness" - whether it be your transcendent self or consciousness of the universe - doesn't even fit the bill of hypothesis.
A scientific theory is well-tested or substantiated theory. A hypothesis is a "proposed" new (or at the very least updated) theory that has to be falsifiable and testable.
I actually agree with you that "reason" and "logic" alone, is not enough to prove what is real.
The experience of what is real comes from the observation - whether it be evidences or though experiments - and that's how something can be experienced dispassionately or impartially...it doesn't come from your "direct experience" though meditation.
Your so-called "direct experience" is from being impartial, dispassionate or objective.
