Auk,Arising_uk wrote:I read the posts where you reply to me. It's too much to read all of a persons posts and personally I prefer to have one-to-one conversations.Greylorn Ell wrote:...
No, Ar_UK has not read it and is unlikely to do so. That is fine with me. He does not peruse my posts before replying to them, and the same reading style applied to the book will leave him ignorant of its content. I'd like to be able to bundle copies of "Digital Universe..." with Mortimer Adler's "How to Read a Book." Arising is curious though, and IMO is on an honest search for truth. He'll read DUAS after I'm dead, claim that he conversed with that annoying, arrogant old fart, and privately wish he'd have done so at a higher level while I was alive.
I well understand how to read a book as I've been doing so from a young-age and the one thing about a philosophy degree is that you learn to read very closely and over a vast range of thoughts. Because of this I find it doubtful that I'll read your book as I really can't be bothered to wade through the polemics I've seen so far to get to the thought and since its apparently a religious metaphysics based upon physics I find it not to my interest.
I'd been reading since I was four years old, and also thought that I knew how. Dr. Adler's book was a revelation, and has changed the way that I read everything.
Since you've read the core of my book on line already, you should be able to answer all the questions you've previously posed. So they must have been posed to either waste my time or set me up. I submit that you've done a piss poor job of reading it, given that you cannot tell the difference between religion and theology.
Because my explanation of things involves the interaction between conscious, highly intelligent minds and the stuff of the universe, it is necessary to develop the properties that such minds must have, and determine a sensible origin for their existence. That is theology, not religion.
An honest theology would limit itself to the nature and properties of a creator, and that's what I do. And yes, I do so in the context of physics instead of bullshit. "Philosopher" wanna-be's who imagine that they can understand anything about existence without learning physics are too foolish and simpleminded to bother with, no different from conventional religionists, insufficiently informed to discuss anything more complex than sports and movies.
Religions get invented when humans come up with a primitive theology involving extraordinarily powerful and intelligent gods, and then get the notion that they are qualified to understand why those gods would have bothered to create a universe, much less a batch of confused humans.
I'm aware that in years to come after others have read DUAS, there will be no end of nitwits trying to use my unique theology to invent more religions. So later, in parts of the book you've not read, I did my best to get them a leg up on their work by offering four different answers to the motivation questions that my unusual theology raises. So I've offered, in effect, four different religions. I also stated my personal favorite, and proposed in the book that more-imaginative writers will have much more fun with these possibilities.
Now, I have a few questions for you, which you will be able to answer if you've read the first eight chapters and understood them.
1. What is the one property that beon must have in order to develop consciousness?
2. What components of the physical universe are not a form of energy?
3. I mention a simple characteristic of humans that everyone is aware of, that does not exist in animals, and explain it using Beon Theory. What is that characteristic?
Q1 can be answered in fewer than 10 words, Q2 and Q3 in a single word. Ideally you will be able to answer these simple questions off the top of your mind, without going back to the text. Thus I anticipate a customarily prompt response, with correct answers, of course. However, I'd be delighted if you can answer those questions at all, however long it takes, because then, and only then, you and I can have an honest conversation.
It makes no difference to me whether you like my ideas or not-- in fact, I'd prefer that you did not. However, no one is qualified to either like or dislike an idea which he does not understand. Such understanding is the only basis for a coherent conversation about the merits of ideas.