|
Hi Mike,
"Will you please post it again soon? "
It? IT? Mike I have been posting here for several years and parts and pieces of my scheme have been posted dozens of times. I could go back and find some of them and give you references if you'd like, but I'm sure you have seen them. What I'm talking about is my belief (actually a guess) that reality consists of nothing but a single consciousness with thoughts. Some of these thoughts are deliberately consistent and as Dr. Dick has pointed out, the behavior of patterns within that set of thoughts must obey the laws of physics. So, as proposed by Berkeley, a set of those thoughts comprise what we call our physical reality. (Some modern physicists have admitted that it surely seems like reality is nothing but thoughts in the mind of God, and Gregory Bateson did a good job of pointing out how very much reality resembles a mind.) In my view, the physical reality as seen by humans is a subset of a much greater set of more than 4 spatio-temporal dimensions. In my view, human bodies, including the brains, are vehicles that are remotely operated by some more complex beings in higher dimensions, and the fact that the information available to the one-and-only consciousness at the (earth) time that a human body is being driven is severely limited to not much more than is stored locally in the brain, that it seems to the one-and-only consciousness that the consciousness inheres in the brain and that the human is an independently conscious entity complete with free will and the ability to apprehend qualia. This is an illusion as there is only and exactly one consciousness.
I'm sure you have heard me say all that before. If you want to read a little more about how I arrived at those guesses, take a look at www.paulandellen.com/essays/essays.htm
"Not so. Not close"
Oh, I think so. In my opinion your language is more innovative, colorful, and imaginative than almost all posters here. And to me, sentences such as
"And you ignored the protocol that if my statements are to be branded authoritatively as illogical, it is inadequate to merely say so."
"are not acutely perceived", at least by me. (I quoted the definition of 'obtuse' from one of my dictionaries.)
"(btw,Why do you say my language is obtuse? It is unsupported with evidence."
(See above.)
"After all, I actually have credentials and professional experience as a clear communicator "
I don't doubt it at all. (See my review of your book.)
Warm regards,
Paul |
