ASSUMING NO ONE BEFORE has thought the thoughts you have, which you can't remember getting from someone else is a shot in the dark. So many people have thought about these things before and you can't read or hear about all of what they wrote down that assuming it didn't occur to anyone else before is not a safe assumption.
That said, two of the things I thought of along the way that I don't remember reading from someone else are
a. the series of questions I raised so as to demonstrate that the scientistic-atheistic-materilalistically required model of "brain only" non-conciousness could not account for how ideas, insisted on as being mere epiphenomena of physical structures in the brain, could have their physical foundations built by a brain before the information contained in the idea could be present in a materialistically assumed brain to instruct it that it needed to make new structures not there, what those structures were to be like, how to make those structures, how to judge that those structures and not others had been made so as to be the right idea and to do it within the time it takes us to have new ideas that are right enough for us to function from the time we get out of bed till we've finished the particular cup of coffee we made that morning and the rest of our conscious lives. All of that has to be done before the idea is inside the brain to tell it all of those things. And it all has to work and work within the time limits of the human experience of having new ideas that work to get us through the day or the model cannot possibly be right and there is no rational reason for anyone to believe in it.
b. the problem of the materialist rejection of a non-material mind interacting with the physical universe being no more of a disproof of a non-material brain than the non-material mathematics that materialists universally accept as impinging on the physical universe in every aspect of the physical universe and which, if those mathematical objects did not impinge on the matter and energy studied by science then all of science would be null and void. It's clear that there is more going on with the physical world than the materialist conception of science can account for, some of it I suspect would be very ungratifyingly spooky to them on account of their materialism and, most of all, their old-fashioned 19th century atheism.
I do suspect some of my research on Darwinism might have found things not noticed before but as literally no one I read from before the wider revelation of the crimes of the Nazis denied the full and total dependence of eugenics in even their most extreme forms, all of them were derived directly from Darwinism, the theory of natural selection, it was more of a rediscovery of that from the rather complete and disturbingly impressive suppression of that among the college-credentialed in the 1950s until today. One group that didn't need to have that relationship newly pointed out to them are the neo-Nazis who pointed that out with pride way before I got involved with those questions. As all of my research on those things is founded in things that the Darwinists, English speaking, German speaking, American-conservative, progressive, and liberal Darwin idolizers as well as Nazi scientists published so as to comprise the primary documentation of my research, most of what I said on that certainly wasn't original, it was merely the evidence that should always have informed that area of research that is dominated by BBC- PBS style hagiographers and American academic liars pretending that research hasn't always been there to refute their lies.
I've been discussing those problems in the presence of materialists for far longer than a decade and have yet to have one of them make a dent in those fatal problems for their ideology. I do feel some gratification in being able to pose the problems, I don't feel smug about having originated them because I don't know if someone else didn't get there first. Well, maybe a little self-satisfied over it but not as much as you accuse me of. Not smug. Not like Sagan was or Degrasse Tyson is.
No comments:
Post a Comment