Double wow!! It has been over five years since my last addition to this document. And, as in the last gap, much has happened in the interim that will influence what I say here. For one thing, I have instituted regular Monday morning breakfasts with my son Dave which somewhat reduces the time available for musing. But in terms of value, the breakfasts are far more important so they will continue. A second major development is that I discovered the author Greylorn Ell and have gotten to know him personally, although we have never met face to face. We communicate via writing and by weekly phone conversations.
As should be evident to any reader of this so far, my ideas have been developing and converging into my own peculiar view of the world. Even though I know these ideas are strenuously rejected by all of the science advocates and all of the religious advocates who have spent any time at all listening to me, none of their objections have been persuasive in the least. For a glimpse into my position and some reaction to it, go to Amazon.com, find the reviews of Steven Pinker's book, How the Mind Works, and read [(7/11/15) my one-star review] under the pseudonym Qdogsman. Follow the comment thread and you will get an introduction to my world view pretty much as it stands today.
Greylorn is an exception to this nearly complete rejection. After much discussion with him, it became clear that we agree on the most basic disagreements we have with both science and religion, these being primarily 1) that mind and brain are not equivalent, nor is mind a result of brain processes or states, 2) that some sort of intelligent designer(s) was/were/are instrumental in the creation of galaxies and of life, 3) that the intelligent designer(s) was/were/are neither perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, or omni-benevolent any more than the designers of our cars or computers are perfect, omnipotent, etc.
Greylorn has invented some terminology which I have adopted for my own ideas. Since consciousness is not seated in the brain, it seems to fit the religious description of the soul. Likewise, the designer of the cosmos seems to fit the religious definition of God. But since in our view, there are significant differences those terms will not be used. Instead, the term 'Beon' refers to consciousness, and in Greylorn's theory, it is earlier manifestations of Beon that are responsible for the design of the cosmos and life. One of the two eternal constituents of reality has recently been discovered by science, so the term they use for it, Dark Energy, will also be used by us (Greylorn and me). I don't want to go into any more detail concerning Greylorn, or Beon Theory right now, but you may consult Greylorn's book on the subject: [(7/11/15) Digital Universe, Analog Soul].
This latest admission will probably be responsible for many readers to lose interest at this point and stop reading. But before you leave, let me say that by doing so, you would be simply confirming our view that your minds are not as open as you might like to think they are, and that as a result you might miss out on something important. Please stay with me.
Now after a nearly five year hiatus, let me try to stitch the pieces together and resume the musings. To start with, I have done a little work on establishing my axioms and some of their consequences so I'll interject them here and now:
Axiomatic Development of Paul Martin's Philosophy
Axiom 1: Thought happens
Definition 1 - Consciousness is thought happening.
Consciousness can conceive concepts.
Consciousness can detect some inconsistencies among concepts.
The notion of infinity cannot be conceived or defined in a consistent manner.
Axiom 2: (This may be derivable as a corollary from the above.) Nothing in nature is infinite
Our bodies exist in a 3D spatial environment
Our 3D space is bent
Axiom 3: (This may be a theorem.) You can't bend a space unless it is a manifold embedded in a space of one greater dimension
Our bodies and instruments have no direct access outside our 3D spatial manifold
Complex structures can, and probably do, exist in inaccessible (to us) higher-D space
Since intelligent structures (us) exist in our 3D manifold, it is likely they exist in higher-D space
Human consciousness experiences and reports events beyond our 3D manifold.
Recollections and reports of these events are incomplete, vague, mysterious, and unreliable.
These other-worldly experiences and reports are common throughout history
Most religions are based on such reports
The differences and nonsense among religious doctrines show the unreliability of the reports.
Some underlying threads and some specific reports are worthy of serious examination.
Axiom 4: No material machine can be conscious.
Since our brains are material machines, our consciousness must be seated outside the brain.
This work was done before being introduced to Beon Theory, so wherever I used 'consciousness' above, you may substitute 'Beon'.
©2015 Paul R. Martin, All rights reserved.