Greylorn Ell wrote:What if the bodiless mind was not artificial, but instead, an entity whose unconscious existence predated the universe?
Well, in that case at least part of beon theory would be true. Perhaps you were following the discussion with Immanuel Can; he does the same as you, and astrologers, and psychoanalysts, all sorts of well meaning scientific prophets and disciples, as well as cranks and charlatans and every religious person ever: create a narrative, quite possibly a logically valid one, and then takes the conclusions as proven. Any such story may be true, but if you want scientists to take it seriously, you have to provide evidence that the initial premises are sound. You might get away with a piece of watertight logic if you are talking to a philosopher, but insisting that the premises are true, because the argument is valid, ie: you have to read the whole book to understand it, will only work on people willing to suspend judgement. There are plenty of those, we all do it to some degree, but finding them is all down to marketing and charm; which is why you're struggling.
Surely your last sentence is about my lack of marketing skills?
Any presentation of alternative ideas requires the person evaluating them to suspend judgement until he has perused and evaluated them. That is why Charles Darwin wrote his theories of evolution in books. By their nature and the investment one must make to obtain a book, books are more likely to be studied and evaluated than ideas presented in a casual conversation.
I detest writing, and would prefer to go out in the woods with firearm or chainsaw and bring something useful home; or even better, go dancing with pretty young women with big tits. So for decades I tried to present Beon Theory by word of mouth. Impossible. Most people's minds are looking for flaws in the presentation before I've uttered two sentences, as soon as they realize that B.T. runs contrary to their beliefs. It always does, because B.T. differs from all belief systems, including atheism.
So I finally killed ten years writing my book. The next trick is to get someone with enough intelligence to comprehend it to take the time to read it. I knew that this would be difficult, but I had no clue as to how difficult. Speed readers are a real problem. The speed-reading brain grasps strings of words but cannot absorb more than one minor newish concept amid 5000 words. DUAS contains about 40-50 unique concepts, including several that are certain to challenge the beliefs and opinions of any well-educated person.
There is superb evidence for Beon Theory, superior in both quantity and quality to the evidence for its competitors. I'm referring to evidence that has already been discovered, within fields as varied as physics, psychology, neurology, biology. Some is complex, like split-brain research. Some is exceedingly simple.
For example, Beon Theory nicely explains the phenomenon of "handedness," the preference in humans to use either right or left hand for operations requiring careful focus and control. Conventional theories of the mind have been unable to explain this, and thus direct their energies to pretending that animals operate similarly, which they do not. (I'm guessing that porpoises and dolphins will exhibit right/left preferences, however.)
On the complex side, B.T. has an explanation of Quantum Mechanics, particularly the "why" aspect of this phenomenon. It also explains why we can only deal with it mathematically at the level of probability theory.
Back to the simple side, Beon Theory happens to explain Dark Energy, incidentally. Etc. etc.
I'm certain that no intelligent, yet honest person, however prejudiced in favor of his/her/its programmed beliefs, would expect to understand complex and contrary ideas without carefully perusing a serious book describing them. Darwin seems to have felt the same way-- but perhaps the "philosophers" on this thread are an exception, capable of evaluating and understanding a theory involving input from nearly every branch of science, developed over a period of 50 years, from a few words on an internet blog. Have I underestimated philosophers so badly? Are they that
Long ago I looked at a few of I.Can's posts and found nothing to recommend them. Had I been following them, you'd know.
I do not treat my ideas as in any way given, or proven. I've taken that approach only with the ideas of others-- first, Catholicism and the American way; later, physics, medicine, general science. After realizing how badly I'd been conned by those well-meaning believers, I developed my own theories. I did my best to ground those ideas in well-proven facts, or theories that were well-supported by hard-won evidence.
To develop a complex theory one must operate under an assumption that it is a good theory, but not necessarily that it represents reality. From that perspective one can kick it around and evaluate what comes back, and modify the theory accordingly. Beon Theory was invented in 1960 and subsequently well kicked, by men smarter than me. The current version retains only vestigial tails from its original. So, kindly do not compare me to conventional believers and run-of-the-mill crackpots. I am not conventional, and could be the guru of all crackpots if I wanted such a silly job.
BTW, do you happen to know of any good internet Charm Schools to which I might apply?