>>>Nietzsche (amongst others) would argue how you would know your math/logic/whatever fits reality so well. It presupposes you know what reality truly is against which you are checking your observations and methods of measurement. It's a catch-22 with the observer always standing in the way. This topic is too complex for forums like this and I wont try and re-write what other far more eloquent and learned people have written about it.
>>
>>I don't care that there may be some other reality, perceived reality is the only one. As long as the perceived logic, maths and science keep coming up with perceived knowledge which I perceive as fitting that reality, and in it other people perceive it the same way (as proven, logical), I'm fine. If any other reality intrudes, well, the intrusion becomes a part of this one.
>
>The perceived reality in a dream is totally internally consistent and accepted by all in the dream. Do I want to stay in the dream for that reason?

Ah, the whole P. K. Dick, the Hindu concept of maya, "is this the real life or is this just fantasy". I don't know, I distinctly perceive the reality of my dreams as inconsistent, unstable and I sometimes choose to flip the channel when I'm not amused. For instance, sometimes I had a good hand of canasta in front of me, and I memorized what I had - and a second later I wasn't seeing those three kings in my hand, aha, must be a dream so I don't care about the game, I'm not really playing, I know it's a dream.

The consistent reality in dreams is an invention of Hollywood, PKD and a bunch of others, simply because it's such a nice plot device and a nice excuse for an otherwise thin plot. Probably comes from the times when a king had a dream and wanted a sage to interpret the meaning - when the dream became a narrative. I'm not convinced that real-life dreams follow that narrative.

>>>Well there are 2 different issues here; one about extra-ordinary experiences in consciousness and one about those that actively preach their religious ideology. The first is about a reality beyond that which can be explained in words or measured and hence is beyond the scientific method. The other is just the way some people are. Why do I know the religious affiliations (or anti-religious feelings) of so many on this forum? Because they have promoted those ideas over and over, albeit not as vigorously as Rick.
>>
>>My take in this matter is that these two groups may not be entirely separate, that the second is initiated by some from the first.
>
>Those in the first group who have such experiences do become members of the second group, no doubt. But I suspect most of those in the first group you never hear from or about.

If under "such" you mean "sufficiently compatible or explainable by some religion's doctrine" then yes, they may become members. Or they just may see why those may be unnecessary :). Or, they may be an origin of a new religion, or a spinoff from an existing one.