Lloyd: * So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness?
* GC, I think you're jumping to conclusions. The link you provided has this quote.
Schuon states the nub of the case against modern science directly:
...modern science is a totalitarian rationalism that eliminates both Revelation and Intellect, and at the same time a totalitarian materialism that ignores the metaphysical relativity - and therewith the impermanence - of matter and the world. It does not know that the supra-sensible, situated as it is beyond space and time, is the concrete principle of the world, and consequently that it is also at the origin of that contingent and changeable coagulation we call "matter". A science that is called "exact" is in fact an "intelligence without wisdom", just as post-scholastic philosophy is inversely a "wisdom without intelligence".13
* Conventional science is more or less like Schuon's description, but conventional science doesn't use the scientific method correctly.
* The Scientific Method involves:
1. making accurate observations of reality;
2. making a hypothesis to attempt to explain observations;
3. testing the hypothesis by experiment, using accurate and relevant measurements, using logic and, if needed, math as well, and taking relevant, accurate notes of all procedures involved, to determine if the hypothesis is contradicted;
4. revising the hypothesis and the experiment, if contradicted;
5. publishing the experiment;
6. getting 2 or more unaffiliated parties to replicate a successful experiment;
7. publishing the hypothesis as a probable fact and a scientific discovery, if all experiments are successful; and
8. using the discovery to increase control over nature for the purpose of improving the conditions of society.
* Common errors that undermine the Scientific Method are:
1. making inaccurate observations of reality;
2. making an untestable hypothesis;
3. misusing logic or math in the experiment;
4. recording false or inaccurate data, or taking inaccurate notes;
5. suppressing potentially useful experiments;
6. failing to replicate an experiment by unaffiliated parties;
7. publishing false or misleading statements about experiments or experimenters; and
8. misusing scientific findings for the detriment of society.
* Human imperfection results in many experiments being done improperly, or reported on inaccurately, or suppressed unfairly. Sociology needs to study these problems and devise means to prevent abuse of science.
* The scientific method uses logic and safeguards against errors and fraud, but conventional science relies on fraud.
* So, if physical reality doesn't exist outside of [universal] consciousness, doesn't it make sense to try to understand the universe as consciousness? I say YES. Isn't the scientific method the best way to understand all that? YES, because other methods avoid either logic or safeguards against fraud and error. Can the scientific method be used to prove that everything must be consciousness? I say, Why not?
* Observation is Perception, which is consciousness. Logic is the way to think accurately. These are aspects of consciousness. Meditation and prayer are not forbidden by scientific method. In fact creative thinking is a requirement, as it is probably a means of accessing universal consciousness. So I believe the scientific method must be used to increase consciousness = knowledge etc for the benefit of all.
). It seems that depending on your level of consciousness (in essence how much perception and thereby the understanding of such) in relation to the universal consciousness, determines the amount of interaction you could ever partake of in the universe hence the multiple forms of the 5 senses and the logical interpretations of these we have been given by the universal consciousness. As we also have some form of memory this means that our consciousness can grow at an exponential rate by the accumulation of the universal consciousness as we build upon previous understanding (now knowledge) from it in us, but this is obviously limited as to the desire of the universal consciousness. "Logically" this also means that eventually we would end up gaining the same level of consciousness as the universal consciousness, but this can never be achieved if the universal consciousness does not approve and if individuality is to be maintained amongst cohesion. So where do we stand..? Well I can say that we can do nothing and understand nothing without the universal consciousness who is holding us in his/her consciousness even as you read this. As everything is held in its consciousness it can do absolutely anything (including creating non-consciousness in consciousness I.e. a "void" and then filling it with whatever it desires) in the best way possible for us or itself or both and the best thing that us humans can do is to get to know the universal consciousness as intimately as possible as in reality that is all there is... but at least it's never ending 
.
