Hello @Vineeto! 
Curiously, I would intuitively agree with that, but something intellectually pointed me toward the knowledge that “you can’t change your genetics”. While that may be scientifically true, it’s also true that I’ve ignored an entire field — epigenetics — which studies precisely how certain factors can influence genetic expression. Reconciling that intuition with a scientific understanding helped me, given that I have this tendency to cling to a scientifically grounded basis.
Yes, I understand that. I’ve been reading about the problem of conducting scientific research necessarily from a third-person perspective on something that is experiential, in the first person. As impressive as some studies are — I found the research around the Default Mode Network (DMN) particularly interesting — it’s an endeavor that, given its inherent limitations, we can’t accept its results without some caution.
I’ve also been reading about this very topic, and I was quite amazed to discover that some people in the past dedicated much of their time to exploring the problem of the scientist starting from a point that is not neutral or objective. I was especially fascinated by Edmund Husserl and Eugen Fink and their method of Phenomenological Reduction. But apparently, their method — which involves suspending all beliefs and preconceptions and associating concepts to what is experienced — was criticized by many, ignored by others, and misunderstood by the rest. It’s truly a problem in science that cannot be overlooked. Psychology seems to suffer from this especially, but certainly so do philosophers of mind and neuroscientists.
I understand what you’re saying, but let me just clarify a bit. I have no doubt that what I experience during my PCEs is exactly what I want, each day, every day, forever. I’m also not closing any doors, as I’m not doubting anything I’m experiencing — I simply need to remain aware that I can’t draw conclusions about the nature of the universe, space, or time based solely on this experience. My conscious experience is entirely true within the context of my subjectivity. A concrete example is pure intent, because the apparent benevolence of the universe might be true only within my subjectivity, maybe due to the fact that I’m a creature evolved to thrive in this physical world. This matters in practice, so that I don’t drift away from the actual truth — that is, so I don’t end up like someone who, to take a religious example, believes in an anthropomorphic god and subjectively experiences the presence of that god: it may be true, for them, but that doesn’t mean it’s a truth outside of their subjective experience. Someone who has never heard of actualism might have a PCE and interpret it through a religious lens, for example. Does that make sense?
The fact that I’m receiving your comments on my posts has been an immense help (thanks @claudiu and @Kub933!), because it makes me feel insecure — in a positive way — about my position, and on the other hand, it makes me question even more what is being said — a natural response when “I” am confronted.
Today there was a realization greater than possibly any I’ve had before. At a certain point recently I started trying to refrain from attaching “concepts” to everything I was experiencing, without success. But that led me to realize that I wasn’t perfectly honest with myself and that there were, again, unexamined beliefs. That made me question one of my deepest beliefs — that I am this body being conscious. This is something I knew not only because of science but also due to actual freedom website. But I questioned if I really had an experiential basis to confirm that. I began a potentially dangerous process consisting of the question — “Am I this?” — based on the principle that I cannot be subject and object at the same time. In other words, I told myself that if I hear something, I cannot be that sound, nor the hearing, nor the ear… I started doing that consistently for everything… At some point I came to the apparent conclusion that I was just awareness… But then something unexpected happened: I saw in a very surprising way that the starting point, the subject, was the “I”. For some reason, I had been convinced I could see the “self” from the outside… that I knew exactly what the “self” was — but the “self” was exactly what was comparing itself. I was unknowingly — but completely — fully identified with the “self”. For a moment, this brought a clarity I’d never had experienced while contemplating. I realized that this is the kind of question I never ask during a PCE, for obvious reasons (I never think about any of this), but on the other hand, it’s the kind of inquiry that is made impossible outside a PCE, due to the existence of the “self” — I don’t escape it, I only fool myself into thinking that I do.