Dear Mike, Allow me to respond to each of your points.
1) From your pattern of wisecrack short replies to my posts since November, I had come to
understand you are contemptuous of my ability and my posted ideas. Therefore, I would not expect
you to be upset if I merely made a little twerpy remark after one of the deepest essays you ever
***True, I am contemptuous, mostly. Not many of your posts are constructive. But I am never upset. It's just that you are very tweekable... Short responses are due to having only 30 minutes a day for this activity***
2) Recently, out of nowhere it seemed, you advised me to read the Tibetan Book of the Dead, which
prepares a person to leave this world. This could be taken as a veiled threat by you, or a friendly
discussion. I responded as if it were the latter, and as usual, you let it sit there.
***Sorry-missed your response. But alas I did not realize you had paranoid tendencies. The suggestion to read the book was entirely altruistic***
3) Phlogiston is a term which apparently bothers you. But I don't see how it can ruin the thread.
When you accuse me of ruining the thread with my little remark, are you kidding again, or are you
willfully violating the commandment against bearing false witness? If so, you might be kidding about
everything...your religion, your location, your career, your name, your science, your beliffs, your
*** I never kid. That is your characterization of me. That is you bearing false witness against me. You do the same to other posters on this forum. That is why you have so little respect here.***
4) "Consciousness" can be defined in very different ways.
a) Indirectly, Harv essentially defined it as
the stuff of motor control.
b) You seem to be defining consciousness as "brain functions" that can visualize and compute...
c) Metacognition is sometimes called "higher consciousness."
*** It's my theory. So I have the right to create my definitions, axioms and hypotheses as I see fit.
BTW- If you get the Phoenix, a Boston based weekly newspaper, this week there is an article entitled "The Fright Club" by Chris Wright. I found it interesting because it says that there is a ready market for a scientific theory of the paranormal such as mine.