Is any purported work of sacred scripture the word of God?

[Greylorn Ell]

Whether or not you are equipped to understand it has less to do with your formal education, more with your ability to honestly consider and study unique concepts that diverge from current beliefs. It is a book that anyone who has a vested interest in his current beliefs should fear to read, because if they understand it, they must doubt their beliefs. That's a frightening proposition for all kinds of dogmatists.

If I have a dogma, it is summed up by Richard Feynman's offering that I keep quoting: 'It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is. It doesn't matter how smart you are, if it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.' I don't 'believe' even that.

Epistemologically, there is no option, logic and mathematics are provable, but in themselves, they are not about anything. As Einstein said: As far as mathematics is about reality it is not certain. As far as it is certain, it is not about reality.' Or as Bertrand Russell put it: 'Mathematics can be categorised as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about.' For all I know, Pythagoras was right and 'all is number', but I happen to think that, even though they are fallible, the only source that we can hope to inform us about the external world is our senses.

Don't get me wrong, maths is a sharp tool, it's the only way to go if you want to get to the moon. I think you need to be cautious though in assigning any ontological status to any of the concepts it makes use of.

We can use our creativity to construct any number of stories that are coherent, and consistent with the things we see and hear, to use Kuhn's terms, we can create a paradigm. As far as I understand, that is as true of the maths we apply to our observations as it is to the metaphysical stories we make up to make it all comprehensible.
Then as Popper noted, we can protect it by generating any number of conditional clauses, which is what people with a 'vested belief' might do. Personally, I have no fear of people presenting their beliefs, if there is nothing in them that is demonstrably, or even theoretically false, there's little point arguing about it. People do though, even blowing each other up or gassing millions of innocents for the sake of a story.
By the same token, if a story doesn't make any claim that will make a difference to anything we see, hear or touch, what is there to persuade anyone that it is a better reflection of reality than any one of thousands of others?

Marjoramblues; if you have read this far, well done. I hope that goes some way to explain why I haven't yet read Greylorn's book. I still might, but if he could point to a phenomenon that is objective and repeatable and a mystery to science, but which his theory explains, I would be in much more of a hurry to acquaint myself with it.
Whaddya got, Greylorn?

Uwot,

Let me begin by agreeing with Feynman. If you cannot verify a theory, what good is it? If experiment invalidates theory, ditch the theory. That you disagree with Feynman on this is not promising. Do you mean to agree with a dipstick astronomer I once knew personally who declared, "Never let mere facts get in the way of a well-considered theory." If so, there is no constraint upon your beliefs except your feelings. You seem to believe in your senses as a source of truth. Were that the case, you'd believe in a flat earth around which the entire universe circles. I propose that your beliefs are actually founded upon agreement-- i.e. you believe what conventional science tells you is valid.

I note in passing that modern physics has abandoned Feynman's core principle of science, and turned to absurd mathematical constructs such as string theory, to goofy cosmological notions such as a multiverse (soon to be followed by multi-multiverses, I'm guessing). Why? Their current theories do not work, and they've discovered that there is money in promoting speculative science on TV with pseudo-scientists who waggle their heads while talking faster than a car's plastic bobble-head Jesus-figurine on a dirt road.

I agree that a theory that makes no difference in people's lives is worthless. My theories are so powerful that if any nation of people adopted them, no matter how small, (I like Singapore as a candidate) that nation would control the world before the 21st century is done. My ideas have changed the lives of dozens of individuals, for the better, mostly by providing a sense of purpose. There is enormous power in concerted, coherent purpose.

I can offer a variety of things that my theory explains. Some are simple, like handedness in human beings. Did you know that humans are the only critters who exhibit the preference for one hand over another? This is a minor mystery, but real.

(In the early 20th century, the distribution of radiation emitted from a small hole in a heated black box was also a minor mystery. Max Planck solved the problem by introducing the physics world to quantum physics.)

Then there are the results of split-brain experiments. The early research on this began in the late sixties, and the observed anomalies have yet to be explained. Were you to research the current state of split-brain studies you will find them all apparently well-explained. That is because they ignore the results of the early work, and of current observations that replicate it. Such current observations are no longer reported in the literature, kind of like how UFO sightings are blown off.

Did you know that the human brain is the only mechanism that supports three separate functions-- the subconscious, conscious, and super-conscious minds, yet contains no discernible mechanisms that, when active, generate those functions? Beon Theory explains why, and discloses the actual mechanisms behind the functions.

Then there is the mysterious phenomenon that physicists have dubbed "dark energy." Discovered in 1998 or thereabouts, dark energy has been labeled, "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." My book describes dark energy and its relationship to the rest of the universe...

...and to human consciousness, which I also explain.

Those are for starters. The biggest problem with the book is that it explains too much. Speed readers who go through it as if it was a People Magazine story about why Angelina had her tits removed will not comprehend a single concept. Its other problem is that it is politically incorrect, but that has nothing to do with the content.

I have no trouble understanding why DUAS is not popular. Not only is a good mind required to even be interested in its range of topics, an open mind is essential. My skills are limited to logic and divergent thinking, and I have zero people-skills. My book reflects this, as do my forum posts. I don't like many people, because most people are disingenuous, snarky, and untrustworthy assholes who put on a nice face in public. (Thanks to its anonymity, jerks show themselves more quickly on forums.) Knowing that few readers are qualified to read the book, my strategy is to piss them off right away so that they stop reading. When promoting my book on a forum I try to insure that the pinheads never buy it, and I'm getting rather good at that.

A socially skilled writer would work to engage all readers, carefully and gradually, trying to suck them into his opinions, irrespective of their worth. Charles Darwin was a master of socially seductive writing. He had to be, given the power of religion in his day. I don't have the time or inclination for such bullshit.

Like the U.S. Marines (and presumably Her Majesty's Royal Marines) are looking for a few good men, I'm looking for a few good minds.

[Arising_uk]

...
Let me begin by agreeing with Feynman. If you cannot verify a theory, what good is it? ...

So how do we verify your theories?

...

You seem to believe in your senses as a source of truth. Were that the case, you'd believe in a flat earth around which the entire universe circles.

...

Not really as my senses through a telescope show me the top of the mast before the ship appears.

I note in passing that modern physics has abandoned Feynman's core principle of science, and turned to absurd mathematical constructs such as string theory, to goofy cosmological notions such as a multiverse (soon to be followed by multi-multiverses, I'm guessing).

Not really, most physicists appear to understand that its still just a theory. The history of science has always been replete with the tension between the mathematical models created by the theoretical physicists and the results from the experimental physicists.

Why? Their current theories do not work, ...

Where don't the theories of Physics work? You saying that there's stuff they can't currently explain? So what? This is the norm with Physics.

and they've discovered that there is money in promoting speculative science on TV with pseudo-scientists who waggle their heads while talking faster than a car's plastic bobble-head Jesus-figurine on a dirt road. ...

They can't be both physicists and pseudo-scientists?

I agree that a theory that makes no difference in people's lives is worthless. My theories are so powerful that if any nation of people adopted them, no matter how small, (I like Singapore as a candidate) that nation would control the world before the 21st century is done. ...

Muhahahaha! Comes to mind.

My ideas have changed the lives of dozens of individuals, for the better, mostly by providing a sense of purpose. There is enormous power in concerted, coherent purpose.

Sure but does it make them true? What you say applied to Marx.

I can offer a variety of things that my theory explains. Some are simple, like handedness in human beings. Did you know that humans are the only critters who exhibit the preference for one hand over another? This is a minor mystery, but real.

(In the early 20th century, the distribution of radiation emitted from a small hole in a heated black box was also a minor mystery. Max Planck solved the problem by introducing the physics world to quantum physics.)

Then there are the results of split-brain experiments. The early research on this began in the late sixties, and the observed anomalies have yet to be explained. Were you to research the current state of split-brain studies you will find them all apparently well-explained. That is because they ignore the results of the early work, and of current observations that replicate it. Such current observations are no longer reported in the literature, kind of like how UFO sightings are blown off.

Did you know that the human brain is the only mechanism that supports three separate functions-- the subconscious, conscious, and super-conscious minds, yet contains no discernible mechanisms that, when active, generate those functions? Beon Theory explains why, and discloses the actual mechanisms behind the functions.

Then there is the mysterious phenomenon that physicists have dubbed "dark energy." Discovered in 1998 or thereabouts, dark energy has been labeled, "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." My book describes dark energy and its relationship to the rest of the universe...

...and to human consciousness, which I also explain. ...

But how can we verify your theories?

Those are for starters. The biggest problem with the book is that it explains too much. Speed readers who go through it as if it was a People Magazine story about why Angelina had her tits removed will not comprehend a single concept. Its other problem is that it is politically incorrect, but that has nothing to do with the content.

Then chop it onto smaller coherent pieces and take your politics out of it.

I have no trouble understanding why DUAS is not popular. Not only is a good mind required to even be interested in its range of topics, an open mind is essential. My skills are limited to logic and divergent thinking, and I have zero people-skills. My book reflects this, as do my forum posts. I don't like many people, because most people are disingenuous, snarky, and untrustworthy assholes who put on a nice face in public. (Thanks to its anonymity, jerks show themselves more quickly on forums.) Knowing that few readers are qualified to read the book, my strategy is to piss them off right away so that they stop reading. When promoting my book on a forum I try to insure that the pinheads never buy it, and I'm getting rather good at that.

Sounds a stupid approach and given the price of your book I'd have no fear it won't sell.

A socially skilled writer would work to engage all readers, carefully and gradually, trying to suck them into his opinions, irrespective of their worth. Charles Darwin was a master of socially seductive writing. He had to be, given the power of religion in his day. I don't have the time or inclination for such bullshit. ...

Have you read him?

Like the U.S. Marines (and presumably Her Majesty's Royal Marines) are looking for a few good men, I'm looking for a few good minds.

There's a few here but given you don't appear to be able to explain your theory I doubt they'll look back.

[uwot]

Arising has already made a lot of the points I would, but here's my tuppence worth anyway.

Uwot,

Let me begin by agreeing with Feynman. If you cannot verify a theory, what good is it? If experiment invalidates theory, ditch the theory. That you disagree with Feynman on this is not promising.

Well I said I don't 'believe' it. What I meant is that I don't hold it as dogma in the way that theist, for instance, believes in god, despite the lack of any evidence. I think what Feynman said is almost certainly true, but if anyone can provide an example of a theory that is not demonstrably true, but is nonetheless incontravertibly true, I will reconsider.

Do you mean to agree with a dipstick astronomer I once knew personally who declared, "Never let mere facts get in the way of a well-considered theory."

If he is the same as the dipstick physicist, then yes. I've not seen that quote attributed to him, but then, I didn't know him personally.

If so, there is no constraint upon your beliefs except your feelings.

Which is why I don't 'believe' anything.

You seem to believe in your senses as a source of truth. Were that the case, you'd believe in a flat earth around which the entire universe circles. I propose that your beliefs are actually founded upon agreement-- i.e. you believe what conventional science tells you is valid.

Right. Maybe I can tie this 'belief' thing up here and now. It's a hackneyed example I know, but it's familiar. If a physicist says they have measured the acceleration of gravity on Earth and they tell me it's 9.8 m a second a second, given that it corresponds with what countless other physicists have measured, there is good reason to think it so. The particular physicist may be lying, but I have no reason not to believe them.
If they say that they measured g as 20mss, I might still believe that that is what they measured, but I can attribute that to their being hopeless physicists. If they tell me that g therefore is 20mss, I don't believe them. They might believe it; in which case they are hopeless and ignorant.
If they tell me that gravity is caused by the warping of spacetime, or the exchange of virtual particles, I personally don't nail my colours to any particular mast.
Long story short: the bit I believe is the peer reviewed, same every time and everywhere, observations. I don't 'believe' any metaphysical explanation, even down to basic things such as charge, mass and spin. I believe the observations and measurements that are attributed to them, there are clearly forces at work, but attributing these forces to any particular cause is metaphysics.
You have suggested that the reason I don't buy your particular story is because I am not open minded. On the contrary, I am so open minded that I think it is at least possible that Bishop Berkeley was right and every experience, in fact, is in the mind of god. The point is, it would make fuck all difference to the empirical evidence. What difference to the empirical evidence does your beon make? What can you point to and say: 'That's the beon for you.' that I couldn't respond to by saying, 'Actually, it's an idea in gods mind.'?

I note in passing that modern physics has abandoned Feynman's core principle of science, and turned to absurd mathematical constructs such as string theory, to goofy cosmological notions such as a multiverse (soon to be followed by multi-multiverses, I'm guessing).

No they haven't. I suspect that string theory is a blind alley. As far as I can tell, it began with mathematicians doing ontology. The premise is that fundamental particles could be abstract entities in abstract domains. Maybe they are, but as Blaggard has pointed out, there is as yet no empirical evidence that supports that claim and, crucially, only that claim.
The fact is that even physicists 'believe' things and make up stories to account for what they observe. From time to time the model they propose is better at describing what happens, or more to the point, the maths that supports it is simpler or more accurate, in which case people will adopt it. They are not, therefore, committed to the metaphysical story that underpins it, eg. Minkowski spacetime.

Why? Their current theories do not work,

What else do you want them to do? What they don't do is tell a coherent story, but that has no bearing on whether computers and whatnot work.

and they've discovered that there is money in promoting speculative science on TV with pseudo-scientists who waggle their heads while talking faster than a car's plastic bobble-head Jesus-figurine on a dirt road.

Well don't knock it. That's the market you're aiming for.

I agree that a theory that makes no difference in people's lives is worthless. My theories are so powerful that if any nation of people adopted them, no matter how small, (I like Singapore as a candidate) that nation would control the world before the 21st century is done.

No nation has ever achieved that without military supremacy. What about the beon will enable the people of Singapore to kill the rest of us more efficiently?

My ideas have changed the lives of dozens of individuals, for the better, mostly by providing a sense of purpose. There is enormous power in concerted, coherent purpose.

Which is why all sorts of looney cults attract a following.

I can offer a variety of things that my theory explains.

In a way that it's all ideas in god's mind doesn't?
You have created a narrative that some phenomena that you have studied don't contradict. Anybody can do that. Any old bollocks will do. What makes yours different?

Those are for starters. The biggest problem with the book is that it explains too much.

I can only echo Arising and suggest you break it down. If there is one thing you can demonstrate unequivocally, people might start to pay attention.

Speed readers who go through it as if it was a People Magazine story about why Angelina had her tits removed will not comprehend a single concept.

I said somewhere else that if a particular part only makes sense in a given context, it doesn't make sense.

Its other problem is that it is politically incorrect, but that has nothing to do with the content.

And probably nothing to do with why no one cares.

I have no trouble understanding why DUAS is not popular. Not only is a good mind required to even be interested in its range of topics, an open mind is essential.

That's the sort of bollocks stage hypnotists and mediums use. If my mind isn't good enough for you, too bad.

Like the U.S. Marines (and presumably Her Majesty's Royal Marines) are looking for a few good men, I'm looking for a few good minds.

Good luck with that, Greylorn.

[uwot]

Do you mean to agree with a dipstick astronomer I once knew personally who declared, "Never let mere facts get in the way of a well-considered theory."

If he is the same as the dipstick physicist, then yes. I've not seen that quote attributed to him, but then, I didn't know him personally.

Sorry, misread this bit. I've seen similar quotes attributed to various people, Paul Dirac springs to mind, but I could be wrong. I'll stick with my version of what Feynman said. The idea that a theory should be independent of empirical facts is, in my view, utter bollocks, which is more or less what I said to Gustav Bjorndtrand.

[Greylorn Ell]

...
Let me begin by agreeing with Feynman. If you cannot verify a theory, what good is it?

So how do we verify your theories?

...

As with any theory you first understand it, then consider its viability, then find those elements of it that can be verified. Then you devise a suitably reproducible experiment and perform it carefully, and repetitively. Experimental work is the most difficult and complex aspect of science.

Theorists like Big Al did not do physical experiments. They left that work to people like Eddington, Fermi, and Oppenheimer who were better qualified. Theory and experiment often require different kinds of minds, as different from those of dancers and musicians, yet co-dependent upon one another.

Relativity theories offer a good example. Their first verification was the gravitational bending of light. Their big verification came over Hiroshima. GPS doesn't work without them.

Beon Theory is already verified in a sense, because it was derived and developed to explain anomalous experimental and empirical observations. I've mentioned a few of these elsewhere.

Some verifications can be fairly subtle. Several years ago I was chatting with a neurological researcher over a few beers, discussing brains and minds. I mentioned that according to Beon Theory the brain should be able to detect information at the field level, i.e. without direct neural connections. To my surprise he mentioned that he and some associates had found that exact effect. He had a paper on it, which has been ignored by the neuroscience community on the grounds that the observed result could not have happened.

Ultimately my theory demands the detection of beon and elucidation of the mechanisms through which it interacts with brain. For suitably trained researchers such as the man I spoke with, this should be a trivial task, but well worth a Nobel Prize.

There are some ancillary aspects to Beon Theory that can be independently verified, and which have nothing to do with beon itself, or with any other aspect of human consciousness. These are fairly technical and have to do with how thermonuclear bombs actually work (the mechanism is currently not understood).

Beon Theory requires a different approach to the beginnings of things than Big Bang or related theories. If explored, the results from B.T. will produce deeper understandings of the universe's origins. This is a sort of verification.

My ideas have changed the lives of dozens of individuals, for the better, mostly by providing a sense of purpose. There is enormous power in concerted, coherent purpose.

Sure but does it make them true? What you say applied to Marx.

You are correct. Success in a political environment does not imply truth. There are those in our own government who still believe that Marxism is a good theory, nevermind the evil it has wrought and is still wreaking. I'm not a politician and am not very socially conscious, but I envision Beon Theory as an ultimate force for good.

So far it has produced such results. The first person to accept it was a young and highly intelligent student who subsequently changed his career path from science to Russian and got rich in the import/export business. Others who have accepted B.T. are doing quite well. My current dance partner is an old friend who never formally bought into the theory, yet changed her life as if she had accepted every working principle.

I've used Beon Theory as a force for good, and especially for change, in my own life. I've spent the time and money to learn a few healing techniques, which have made useful differences in the lives of others. I've forced myself to learn things that I feared to study, and to push my limits. If these are good things or indifferent, I'm unqualified to judge until the game is over, this round anyway.

Mine is a consciousness-affirming theory, but like an outside-turn lead on the dance floor, theory is only an invitation to the dance of consciousness. A turn-lead does not tell one's partner how to physically execute the mechanics of a 360 degree turn that must be done in a half-second or less without falling on her nose. Beon Theory offers no rules for human behavior, sets up no gods for human worship. One of its fundamental principles is that beon is not created. Thus, there is no creator to demand standards of behavior. We get to invent our own-- as we do anyway.

If Beon Theory is verified and if it ever achieves widespread approval, the religious landscape and hence the political landscape will change significantly. I see such changes as ultimately being for the good of the world and its inhabitants, and therein lies the ultimate validation.

I can offer a variety of things that my theory explains. Some are simple, like handedness in human beings. Did you know that humans are the only critters who exhibit the preference for one hand over another? This is a minor mystery, but real.

(In the early 20th century, the distribution of radiation emitted from a small hole in a heated black box was also a minor mystery. Max Planck solved the problem by introducing the physics world to quantum physics.)

Then there are the results of split-brain experiments. The early research on this began in the late sixties, and the observed anomalies have yet to be explained. Were you to research the current state of split-brain studies you will find them all apparently well-explained. That is because they ignore the results of the early work, and of current observations that replicate it. Such current observations are no longer reported in the literature, kind of like how UFO sightings are blown off.

Did you know that the human brain is the only mechanism that supports three separate functions-- the subconscious, conscious, and super-conscious minds, yet contains no discernible mechanisms that, when active, generate those functions? Beon Theory explains why, and discloses the actual mechanisms behind the functions.

Then there is the mysterious phenomenon that physicists have dubbed "dark energy." Discovered in 1998 or thereabouts, dark energy has been labeled, "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." My book describes dark energy and its relationship to the rest of the universe...

...and to human consciousness, which I also explain. ...

But how can we verify your theories?

That you repeated your question suggests that you are not one of the "we" who will do the verification work.

Those are for starters. The biggest problem with the book is that it explains too much. Speed readers who go through it as if it was a People Magazine story about why Angelina had her tits removed will not comprehend a single concept. Its other problem is that it is politically incorrect, but that has nothing to do with the content.

Then chop it onto smaller coherent pieces and take your politics out of it.

I'm working on that, and on a new quick introduction to the core theory. However, there is not a damn thing that I can do to improve the intelligence or reading comprehension of others. Back when I was studying physics and such, I soon realized that I was out of high school. Not only did I need to do homework, I also needed to read, and repetitively re-read paragraphs, sections, and chapters until I understood the material. Other students kept to their high school ways and flunked out.

"Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" was my first successful writing of Beon Theory in a form that could make sense to any intelligent and careful reader. I stress the word "could." The book's biggest problem is that it contains a number of unique ideas that are different from what everyone, atheist and Christian alike, currently believes. The human mind tends to "not actually read" such ideas. The brain scans the words but they fail to register any meaning. Thus it is as if the words are not even on the page. (This is a known psychological effect.)

Speed readers understand nothing, or very little of the book, because speed reading does not recognize new concepts.

Because Beon Theory is comprehensive, its concepts depend upon one another. A reader who misses the fundamental ideas cannot possibly make sense of the ideas that follow. The Amazon reviews include comments from one person who has not even opened the book, and others who fell into the speed reader's trap, understanding nothing, and therefore coming away with the complaint that the book offers nothing new.

The 5 star reviews have all come from individuals who have perused the book at least twice.

A socially skilled writer would work to engage all readers, carefully and gradually, trying to suck them into his opinions, irrespective of their worth. Charles Darwin was a master of socially seductive writing. He had to be, given the power of religion in his day. I don't have the time or inclination for such bullshit. ...

Have you read him?

I did not study biology in high school or university, so when it came time to learn the subject, I began with "On the Origin of Species" and followed up with "The Descent of Man. Out of school by then, I'd learned that it is best to get information from its originator rather than from some professor or textbook, who and which always introduce distortions. I learned this by reading Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," which taught things at a level that went deeper at the philosophical level than any of my mechanics textbooks.

Having read Darwin, the lies (both positive and negative) of subsequent writers become as obvious as their inability to honestly interpret his writings, and to admit his many errors.

IMO Darwin was a genius on many levels, particularly on the level of social manipulation. He would have made a first-rate car salesman and had he chosen to go into politics, I've no doubt that he would have become a renowned statesman. His work, combined with that of Galileo's, ultimately broke the grip of dogmatic stupidity imposed upon science by Christianity.

Nonetheless, while his belief in random mutations works fine for intra-species modifications like finch beaks, the mathematics fails when applied to the transformation of one species into another, e.g. fish into amphibians.

Like the U.S. Marines (and presumably Her Majesty's Royal Marines) are looking for a few good men, I'm looking for a few good minds.

There's a few here but given you don't appear to be able to explain your theory I doubt they'll look back.

If they really are good, they'll be smart enough to know that the Marine training course cannot be accomplished over a weekend, and a serious book cannot be explained on an internet forum. My approach to readers is designed to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either.

[Hjarloprillar]

If they really are good, they'll be smart enough to know that the Marine training course cannot be accomplished over a weekend, and a serious book cannot be explained on an internet forum. My approach to readers is designed to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either.

Greylorn ["and I have zero people-skills", i disagree, im a people]

An excellent thread.
Some very good examples and comments.

I began to truly think when i decided a method was all.
i built one with as few holes as possible from trash in head. From thousands of books history/spec fiction/military.
[ie; that with least emotional junk.]

to be edited..hav a meet down town.

yours
Prill

[Arising_uk]

As with any theory you first understand it, then consider its viability, then find those elements of it that can be verified. Then you devise a suitably reproducible experiment and perform it carefully, and repetitively. Experimental work is the most difficult and complex aspect of science.

Theorists like Big Al did not do physical experiments. They left that work to people like Eddington, Fermi, and Oppenheimer who were better qualified. Theory and experiment often require different kinds of minds, as different from those of dancers and musicians, yet co-dependent upon one another.

Relativity theories offer a good example. Their first verification was the gravitational bending of light. Their big verification came over Hiroshima. GPS doesn't work without them.

But the theorists put forward the conditions that would prove or more importantly disprove their theory.

Beon Theory is already verified in a sense, because it was derived and developed to explain anomalous experimental and empirical observations. I've mentioned a few of these elsewhere.

So what would prove or disprove your theory?

Some verifications can be fairly subtle. Several years ago I was chatting with a neurological researcher over a few beers, discussing brains and minds. I mentioned that according to Beon Theory the brain should be able to detect information at the field level, i.e. without direct neural connections. To my surprise he mentioned that he and some associates had found that exact effect. He had a paper on it, which has been ignored by the neuroscience community on the grounds that the observed result could not have happened.

More likely that the observed result was not repeatable.

What do you mean by 'field level'? Electromagnetism? If so, it does not seem unfeasible that the CNS can be affected by such things given that it works in part with bio-electricity but it'd still be the neuron being affected. No need for your 'Beons' at all.

Ultimately my theory demands the detection of beon and elucidation of the mechanisms through which it interacts with brain. For suitably trained researchers such as the man I spoke with, this should be a trivial task, but well worth a Nobel Prize.

Did he do it then? Given its such a trivial task and the reward large.

There are some ancillary aspects to Beon Theory that can be independently verified, and which have nothing to do with beon itself, or with any other aspect of human consciousness. These are fairly technical and have to do with how thermonuclear bombs actually work (the mechanism is currently not understood).

Really? What don't they understand?

Beon Theory requires a different approach to the beginnings of things than Big Bang or related theories. If explored, the results from B.T. will produce deeper understandings of the universe's origins. This is a sort of verification.

What kind of deeper understanding?

You are correct. Success in a political environment does not imply truth. There are those in our own government who still believe that Marxism is a good theory, nevermind the evil it has wrought and is still wreaking. I'm not a politician and am not very socially conscious, but I envision Beon Theory as an ultimate force for good.

Marx thought the same for his Historical Materialism.

So far it has produced such results. The first person to accept it was a young and highly intelligent student who subsequently changed his career path from science to Russian and got rich in the import/export business. Others who have accepted B.T. are doing quite well. My current dance partner is an old friend who never formally bought into the theory, yet changed her life as if she had accepted every working principle.

One can pretty much say this for any reasonable set of presuppositions one decides to accept, NLP offers much the same results if one accepts the presuppositions, belief is a strong thing.

I've used Beon Theory as a force for good, and especially for change, in my own life. I've spent the time and money to learn a few healing techniques, which have made useful differences in the lives of others. I've forced myself to learn things that I feared to study, and to push my limits. If these are good things or indifferent, I'm unqualified to judge until the game is over, this round anyway.

Why do you think 'you' will be back?

Mine is a consciousness-affirming theory, but like an outside-turn lead on the dance floor, theory is only an invitation to the dance of consciousness. A turn-lead does not tell one's partner how to physically execute the mechanics of a 360 degree turn that must be done in a half-second or less without falling on her nose. Beon Theory offers no rules for human behavior, sets up no gods for human worship. One of its fundamental principles is that beon is not created. Thus, there is no creator to demand standards of behavior. We get to invent our own-- as we do anyway.

Then no need for 'Beon theory'?

If Beon Theory is verified and if it ever achieves widespread approval, the religious landscape and hence the political landscape will change significantly. I see such changes as ultimately being for the good of the world and its inhabitants, and therein lies the ultimate validation.

You must have some idea how it can be verified?

I can offer a variety of things that my theory explains. Some are simple, like handedness in human beings. Did you know that humans are the only critters who exhibit the preference for one hand over another? This is a minor mystery, but real.

I'm all ears?

(In the early 20th century, the distribution of radiation emitted from a small hole in a heated black box was also a minor mystery. Max Planck solved the problem by introducing the physics world to quantum physics.)

Then there are the results of split-brain experiments. The early research on this began in the late sixties, and the observed anomalies have yet to be explained. Were you to research the current state of split-brain studies you will find them all apparently well-explained. That is because they ignore the results of the early work, and of current observations that replicate it. Such current observations are no longer reported in the literature, kind of like how UFO sightings are blown off.

We now pretty much know that UFO's are advanced warfare planes. It looks like the black-ops depts are about 15-20 years ahead of the published game.

Did you know that the human brain is the only mechanism that supports three separate functions-- the subconscious, conscious, and super-conscious minds, yet contains no discernible mechanisms that, when active, generate those functions?

Did you know that theses terms are just theoretical postulates from psychology and the reason why there might not be any discernible mechanisms is that they don't actually exist?

Beon Theory explains why, and discloses the actual mechanisms behind the functions.

I'm all ears? Maybe answer in Phil of Mind.

Then there is the mysterious phenomenon that physicists have dubbed "dark energy." Discovered in 1998 or thereabouts, dark energy has been labeled, "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." My book describes dark energy and its relationship to the rest of the universe...

I'm all ears but maybe you should post it in the Phil of Science sub-section.

...and to human consciousness, which I also explain. ...

I'm all ears but maybe in the Phil of Mind section.

That you repeated your question suggests that you are not one of the "we" who will do the verification work.

Since I'm not an experimental physicist I'd take that as a given. If you mean will I be believing in it as a presupposition I think I'll pass as I think NLP's presuppositions will do for now with respect to existential acting in the world.

I'm working on that, and on a new quick introduction to the core theory. However, there is not a damn thing that I can do to improve the intelligence or reading comprehension of others. Back when I was studying physics and such, I soon realized that I was out of high school. Not only did I need to do homework, I also needed to read, and repetitively re-read paragraphs, sections, and chapters until I understood the material. Other students kept to their high school ways and flunked out.

You said you flunked out?

"Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" was my first successful writing of Beon Theory in a form that could make sense to any intelligent and careful reader. I stress the word "could." The book's biggest problem is that it contains a number of unique ideas that are different from what everyone, atheist and Christian alike, currently believes. The human mind tends to "not actually read" such ideas. The brain scans the words but they fail to register any meaning. Thus it is as if the words are not even on the page. (This is a known psychological effect.)

From what I've read its more to do with your political polemics and the baggage you carry with respect to the other subjects. Clear all that clutter out and just post the theory and maybe you'll get some where.

Speed readers understand nothing, or very little of the book, because speed reading does not recognize new concepts.

Nothing to do with speed reading, some of the best conceptualisers were and are speed readers. I think you mean skim reading.

Because Beon Theory is comprehensive, its concepts depend upon one another. A reader who misses the fundamental ideas cannot possibly make sense of the ideas that follow. The Amazon reviews include comments from one person who has not even opened the book, and others who fell into the speed reader's trap, understanding nothing, and therefore coming away with the complaint that the book offers nothing new.

The 5 star reviews have all come from individuals who have perused the book at least twice.

Amazon reviews are hardly authoritative.

I did not study biology in high school or university, so when it came time to learn the subject, I began with "On the Origin of Species" and followed up with "The Descent of Man. Out of school by then, I'd learned that it is best to get information from its originator rather than from some professor or textbook, who and which always introduce distortions. I learned this by reading Galileo's "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems," which taught things at a level that went deeper at the philosophical level than any of my mechanics textbooks.

I see the latter is online, I'll take a peruse.

Having read Darwin, the lies (both positive and negative) of subsequent writers become as obvious as their inability to honestly interpret his writings, and to admit his many errors.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

IMO Darwin was a genius on many levels, particularly on the level of social manipulation. He would have made a first-rate car salesman and had he chosen to go into politics, I've no doubt that he would have become a renowned statesman. His work, combined with that of Galileo's, ultimately broke the grip of dogmatic stupidity imposed upon science by Christianity.

I doubt any of this. Darwin was a naturalist not a 'social manipulator' nor a politician, I think your 'accolades' actually ad-homs. What broke Science free was Aristotles dethronement.

Nonetheless, while his belief in random mutations works fine for intra-species modifications like finch beaks, the mathematics fails when applied to the transformation of one species into another, e.g. fish into amphibians.

He didn't postulate 'random mutations'?

If they really are good, they'll be smart enough to know that the Marine training course cannot be accomplished over a weekend, and a serious book cannot be explained on an internet forum. My approach to readers is designed to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either.

I think the problem you have is that the smart ones will pretty much put down any book no matter what it promises if they have to wade through obviously biased polemics. Try cutting-out all the rants and just put the ideas, otherwise it just sounds like emotive manipulation.

[Greylorn Ell]

If they really are good, they'll be smart enough to know that the Marine training course cannot be accomplished over a weekend, and a serious book cannot be explained on an internet forum. My approach to readers is designed to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either.

Greylorn ["and I have zero people-skills", i disagree, im a people]

An excellent thread.
Some very good examples and comments.

I began to truly think when i decided a method was all.
i built one with as few holes as possible from trash in head. From thousands of books history/spec fiction/military.
[ie; that with least emotional junk.]

to be edited..hav a meet down town.

yours
Prill

Prill,
Interesting teaser. Follow up? I too began with a focus on method, which was only a starting point.l I was young then.

I have a difficult time imagining how a theory derived from history, warfare (which I appreciate both personally and philosophicallly) and sci-fi could avoid emotional content. I've published a fictional best-seller. A reader who is not in tears at the ending of it did not actually read it. W/o emotion such books fail.

I built my theories from parapsychology and physics. They are available for perusal, because I put my money behind my mouth. Perhaps someday you will compare your ideas to mine. More likely, not in my lifetime. And you are welcome to do so earlier than that.
G

[Hjarloprillar]

If they really are good, they'll be smart enough to know that the Marine training course cannot be accomplished over a weekend, and a serious book cannot be explained on an internet forum. My approach to readers is designed to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either.

Greylorn ["and I have zero people-skills", i disagree, im a people]

An excellent thread.
Some very good examples and comments.

I began to truly think when i decided a method was all.
i built one with as few holes as possible from trash in head. From thousands of books history/spec fiction/military.
[ie; that with least emotional junk.]

to be edited..hav a meet down town.

yours
Prill

Prill,
Interesting teaser. Follow up? I too began with a focus on method, which was only a starting point.l I was young then.

I have a difficult time imagining how a theory derived from history, warfare (which I appreciate both personally and philosophicallly) and sci-fi could avoid emotional content. I've published a fictional best-seller. A reader who is not in tears at the ending of it did not actually read it. W/o emotion such books fail.

I built my theories from parapsychology and physics. They are available for perusal, because I put my money behind my mouth. Perhaps someday you will compare your ideas to mine. More likely, not in my lifetime. And you are welcome to do so earlier than that.
G

Greylorn

My 'method to understanding' works best as science method does. Without emotion/desire .

You are correct in that history and military has brought me to tears for so many reasons.
So much pain and death. The lost potential and horror of all the children.
Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Auschwitz. The inquisition. And many many more.

[ie; that with least emotional junk.] was incorrect, my bad.
I have aspi traits , i dont lie. Not lying is VERY interesting in human society.

If i'm wrong. I'm wrong. There is no fear attached. Being wrong is normal.
If we never changed our minds. why have one..
____________________
"We form our belief systems before we are exposed to the facts that the beliefs are supposed to explain. We are taught about God's creation of the universe before studying biology, physics, astronomy, and other little details about that universe. We are taught that all things were created by God from nothing before learning what "nothing" might be, or if it ever could have existed."

Looks good. i'll order it when i'm in town next.

I believe, through my method that parapsychology or to be specific, certain parapsychological elements have true evidence to justify validity.
i agree
"to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either."

Arising says
"I think the problem you have is that the smart ones will pretty much put down any book no matter what it promises if they have to wade through obviously biased polemics. Try cutting-out all the rants and just put the ideas, otherwise it just sounds like emotive manipulation."

I doubt he has read it. But i know what he means.

think well

Prill

[Greylorn Ell]

AUK,
Thank you for your responses. Back when I was less experienced with forum posters I'd have answered your every question. I have answered them, elsewhere. Of course they are answered in "Digital Universe-- Analog Soul."

I've learned at the expense of considerable time that trying to answer questions that are answered my book is a stupifying, frustrating waste of time. I won't do that again.

Nonetheless I appreciate your curiosity.
GL

[Greylorn Ell]

Prill,
Interesting teaser. Follow up? I too began with a focus on method, which was only a starting point.l I was young then.

I have a difficult time imagining how a theory derived from history, warfare (which I appreciate both personally and philosophicallly) and sci-fi could avoid emotional content. I've published a fictional best-seller. A reader who is not in tears at the ending of it did not actually read it. W/o emotion such books fail.

I built my theories from parapsychology and physics. They are available for perusal, because I put my money behind my mouth. Perhaps someday you will compare your ideas to mine. More likely, not in my lifetime. And you are welcome to do so earlier than that.
G

Greylorn

My 'method to understanding' works best as science method does. Without emotion/desire .

You are correct in that history and military has brought me to tears for so many reasons.
So much pain and death. The lost potential and horror of all the children.
Dresden, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Auschwitz. The inquisition. And many many more.

[ie; that with least emotional junk.] was incorrect, my bad.
I have aspi traits , i dont lie. Not lying is VERY interesting in human society.

If i'm wrong. I'm wrong. There is no fear attached. Being wrong is normal.
If we never changed our minds. why have one..
____________________
"We form our belief systems before we are exposed to the facts that the beliefs are supposed to explain. We are taught about God's creation of the universe before studying biology, physics, astronomy, and other little details about that universe. We are taught that all things were created by God from nothing before learning what "nothing" might be, or if it ever could have existed."

Looks good. i'll order it when i'm in town next.

I believe, through my method that parapsychology or to be specific, certain parapsychological elements have true evidence to justify validity.
i agree
"to filter out nitwits who are looking for excuses to gripe about something that they are too lazy or stupid to understand, especially if it interferes with their current beliefs, which they picked up from someone else and really do not understand either."

Arising says
"I think the problem you have is that the smart ones will pretty much put down any book no matter what it promises if they have to wade through obviously biased polemics. Try cutting-out all the rants and just put the ideas, otherwise it just sounds like emotive manipulation."

I doubt he has read it. But i know what he means.

think well

Prill

Prill,

Your notion that science is not done with emotion is wrong. This may be true for the run-of-the-mill Ph.Ds who populate academia, but the best of them bring intensity and feeling to their work. The great ones dedicated their lives, hearts, and souls to the art of discovery. Please do not confuse them with the glut of ordinary science teachers, university pedants and documentary channel flacks.

I appreciate your interest in the book, and expect you to discuss its ideas with me. You cannot get it in any town because I do not know how to market it to bookstores, and when I do they do not know where on their shelves to put it. You'll need to get a copy from me or from amazon.com.

The back cover text you quoted was written by my editor, who stopped charging me for her services about halfway through the book. Her experience with it was especially intense because she had to read and re-read, so she understood everything. I've subsequently learned that the book must be read carefully, no faster than a chapter a week, with a back-read before moving on.

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.

[Hjarloprillar]

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.

LoL

By the way. when i say science im not talking about people , but the method.
Emotion in science method used by man is seen in so many places.
Oppenheimers " i have become death, destroyer of worlds" and Bainbridges reply " now we are all sons of bitches"
Maybe the most well known.
A measure of passion is a good thing in learning and discovery. The desire and imagination is fundamental to our species.
And has for good or bad, taken us from root grubbing tribal life to what we have now.

The emotionless application of science the method was truly blown away [excuse the pun] in new mexico when "The Gadget" An implosion plutonium design " used on Nagasaki" Fat man..
detonated at 05:29:21 july 16 1945.

I'll check amazon out for Digital,,,,,,,[good title name btw.]
As a reader with manyyy thousands "the number is lost in the stacks" packed into this meat computer called my tired old brain.
I have my way of reading.
Suffice it to say if i can read Kants "critique of pure reason" your book HAS to be a walk in park.

If i wrote a book it would be more like Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World . [the movie]
I do love a good adventure.
Aubrey's joke to passionate and overserious naturalist and scientist Dr Maturin.

Capt. Jack Aubrey: If you had to choose. If you were forced to make a choice. If there was no other response...
Dr. Stephen Maturin: [Exasperated] Well then if you are going to *push* me...
[the doctor studies the weevils briefly]
Dr. Stephen Maturin: ...I would choose the right hand weevil; it has... significant advantage in both length and breadth.
[the captain thumps his fist in the table]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: There, I have you! You're completely dished! Do you not know that in the service...
[pauses]
Capt. Jack Aubrey: ...one must always choose the lesser of two weevils.
[the officers burst out in laughter]

As in life
If we all chose the lesser or two weevils. Human history would be vastly different.

Prill

[Arising_uk]

...
I doubt he has read it.
...

I've read what he's put online and based upon this I stand by what I say.

[Arising_uk]

...
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 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.

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.

[Hjarloprillar]

...
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 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.

I well understand how to read a book as I've been doing so from a young-age and the one thing about a philosopher 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.

Foghorn

"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."

'Well' you speak you mind.
Honesty is admirable i wish more were so and not fawning lying lickspittles that pass for the norm in these times of facile idiocy.
People say i'm arrogant.
People are in the majority.. stupid.

And what if i am? Someone has to be honest.

Prill