The Philosophy Discussion Forum

GE:

The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I."

In your opinion, how were the chapters misused ?

Greylorn Ell wrote: I read the Wiki article, which lacks clarity and is not well-edited. From it, I conclude that Blanco failed to distinguish the subconscious from the conscious mind. The effect is that he muddles mental functionality in his attempts to fit it into his five categories, merely expanding upon Freud's errors.

Perhaps his book would reflect his work more coherently than this Wiki article.

Greylorn;

Although we agree on many aspects of consciousness, we have a serious difference of opinion here. I know that there are a lot of people who love to hate Freud, but I think that he was a genius. My understanding of psychology has been a tremendous boon to my understandings of consciousness, and it is my considered opinion that one can not fully grasp the concept of consciousness without an understanding of psychology and the divisions of mind.

To me, the division of the conscious mind and the subconscious mind is obvious. The conscious mind is rational, logical, and is directed by us; the subconscious mind is completely reactionary and is ruled by emotion. This looks like a big difference to me. The conscious rational mind is involved in time and space and the material world; the subconscious mind has no clue as to time and space and only seems to relate to other life. This looks like another big difference to me.

I asked you in a PM what you think that the soul or "beon" actually is, and you did not answer. So I am asking again, and would also like to know what you think "mind" actually is and if they are the same thing.

G

Greylorn Ell wrote: Here are some alternative ideas for your consideration.

You have bundled every mental experience except sensory perception into your concept of consciousness, as do most thinkers on the subject. This is correct if the human brain is the sole source of consciousness, but not correct if Descartes is remotely correct in identifying soul as mind, or if my Beon Theory, which proposes that consciousness depends upon a physical and non-material entity separate from, but connected to a normal brain, is valid.

No. You misunderstand me. My thoughts to not preclude you and Descartes from being essentially correct. I gathered, not bundled, all of the aspects of consciousness together in order to compare them. The reason that I wanted to consider them all is because I found that too many others had created false dichotomies regarding the different aspects. Science likes to consider only the brain and thought while treating emotion like it is an extra, and has no idea of what awareness is; religion likes to consider emotion, "God", and magic, and has no concept of cause and effect; and philosophy is just as bad in it's biases. I studied the entire chapter on Consciousness in the on-line SEP (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) and noted that they do not even consider emotion. If you type the word, emotion, into the search feature of the SEP, you will get Stoicism, some articles on Feminism, and a wealth of information from Eastern Religions on how to control emotion. It is my opinion that philosophy ignores emotion with regard to consciousness, as emotion leads back to religion.

So I think that most people do not consider all of the aspects of consciousness. They pick and choose the ones that suit their theories, and ignore the others. If you can't explain all of them, they you are not explaining consciousness.

Greylorn Ell wrote: According to Beon Theory, imaginative thought, conceptual understanding, and conceptual memory are properties of a non-created entity (beon) that has the potential to acquire self-awareness. The brain can learn logic, and does most of what passes for the category of reasoning most commonly employed by humans, rationalization. The brain retains detailed knowledge, such as the words and grammars of languages, navigation skills, and all memories relating to experience, but the human brain is naturally no more conscious than the brains of any critter. Instinct is entirely a brain-level property, but it is sometimes confused with retained conceptual memory at the beon level. Emotions are almost entirely a function of the brain, but are also easily confused as a property of consciousness because beon often learns to emulate this brain function so as to go along for the ride.

Well, I see things a little differently. I don't think that I have a problem with "imaginative thought, conceptual understanding, and conceptual memory are properties of a non-created entity (beon) that has the potential to acquire self-awareness", as this works for me.

I do have a problem with your ideas regarding instinct. How does a specie have instincts when they do not have a brain if instincts are a "brain-level property"? All species have a survival instinct, and trees know to grow their roots toward water and turn their leaves to the sun in order to survive.

I think that you seriously underestimate emotion, as it is the driving force that makes everything happen. I suspect that it is essential in the formation of mind, and maybe soul. It is also the only aspect of consciousness that is obviously external to the body.

Greylorn Ell wrote: Beon theory is only remotely Cartesian, and makes a point of assigning specific mechanisms to particular cognitive functions. You will find it much easier to understand consciousness from its unique perspective.

Well, I do that too, in my simplified sort of way. Matter holds knowledge and memory, grey matter holds knowledge, memory, and processes them for thinking. Hormones and pheromones work instincts. Chemistry works emotion, feeling, and probably awareness.

Greylorn Ell wrote: The notion of "pure mind" cannot apply to a human being, because our mind is a composite entity, beon integrated with brain. Any beon that is not physically attached to a brain and has learned to sustain consciousness can be regarded as a pure mind, despite its limitations.

Greylorn

I don't like the notion of "pure mind" anymore than I like the notion of "pure consciousness". I have some thoughts on "mind" that I would like to share with you, but not now. You wrote too many posts that I have to respond to, and I am moving slow lately.

G

Greylorn Ell wrote: Gee,

The endospore is analogous to a plant seed, or a fungal spore. It is a biological machine that is engineered with built-in sensors that activate different behaviors as a function of environmental circumstances.

Yes, you could compare it to a seed, but it is not a very good comparison. A seed is a normal part of a life cycle, an endospore is not. A seed will try to open when put in water, an endospore will not. You are not thinking here.

There are bacteria that can go through thousands of life cycles without ever turning into endospore, so it is not part of the life cycle -- it is a reaction to an unsuitable environment. This part makes sense, and yes, it could be mechanical. But after turning into an endospore, it has a coating that is impervious to extreme changes in temperature, differences in moisture, and even harsh chemicals. When it turns back into bacteria, it seems to be an internal change that causes this, so how does it know to change? How does it discern the now suitable environment through that impervious coat? Because it will not turn back on because of temperature, or because of water, or because of suitable food -- it must have all three -- so how does it know?

Greylorn Ell wrote: Years ago I wrote some computer code to control a telescope that could execute an observing program all on its own without human interference, for several successive days. During daylight hours it would do nothing, although the computer that controlled it was constantly running.

OK So if I unplugged the computer that supervises this telescope and left it for one hundred thousand years, then it would go back to work at the end of that time all by itself?

Endospore can exist for hundreds of thousands of years with no discernible metabolism, and then turn back on by themselves. This looks impossible to me, but it happens. The cause and effect gal wants to know how it happens.

Greylorn Ell wrote: This exemplifies a set of distinctions that many thinkers ignore, thereby confusing an organism's awareness of its circumstances with awareness of self, i.e. consciousness.

Greylorn

This has nothing to do with awareness of circumstances or self, it has to do with cause and effect.

G

Greylorn Ell wrote: Gee,

I would apply your analogy to consciousness by proposing that the human brain is the ditch into which consciousness can flow.

Greylorn

Greylorn;

You are being such a religious scientist! "Human brain"?

So there can be no consciousness unless it regards a human -- religion's interpretation.

So there can be no consciousness unless it regards a brain -- science's interpretation.

So I guess this means that Darwin discovered that there was this wonderful thing called "life" that grew and adapted and evolved magically until finally it became human and then magically became conscious according to the religious scientists.

If you can't figure out that ALL life is aware, then you know nothing about consciousness.

G

Gee wrote:OK So if I unplugged the computer that supervises this telescope and left it for one hundred thousand years, then it would go back to work at the end of that time all by itself?

Endospore can exist for hundreds of thousands of years with no discernible metabolism, and then turn back on by themselves. This looks impossible to me, but it happens. The cause and effect gal wants to know how it happens.

Really poor anology, the power is similar to food and water for the human, we need energy too.

HexHammer wrote:

Gee wrote:OK So if I unplugged the computer that supervises this telescope and left it for one hundred thousand years, then it would go back to work at the end of that time all by itself?

Endospore can exist for hundreds of thousands of years with no discernible metabolism, and then turn back on by themselves. This looks impossible to me, but it happens. The cause and effect gal wants to know how it happens.

Really poor anology, the power is similar to food and water for the human, we need energy too.

HexHammer;

That was my point. The endospore should be dead after 100,000 years. It should not be capable of turning back into bacteria.

G

Gee wrote:

HexHammer wrote:

Gee wrote:OK So if I unplugged the computer that supervises this telescope and left it for one hundred thousand years, then it would go back to work at the end of that time all by itself?

Endospore can exist for hundreds of thousands of years with no discernible metabolism, and then turn back on by themselves. This looks impossible to me, but it happens. The cause and effect gal wants to know how it happens.

Really poor anology, the power is similar to food and water for the human, we need energy too.

HexHammer;

That was my point. The endospore should be dead after 100,000 years. It should not be capable of turning back into bacteria.

G

No?

marjoramblues wrote:GE:

The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I."

In your opinion, how were the chapters misused ?

Elsewhere, GE:

My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness

Oh, so it seems you are Terrel Miedaner, author of 'The Soul of Anna Klane' - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.

Are you, really ?
So - please, tell me - how were the chapters misused?
And how have they been used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when ?

Gee wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Gee, you mention Descartes in the previous post so let's try out your idea with a thought experiment.

Imagine a brain in a vat kept alive by preserving liquid. This brain is connected to a sophisticated computer. The computer supplies electrical impulses to the brain in order to simulate the observation of a range of objects. Even though I might be a brain in a vat, I believe I am sitting in a room at my computer desk typing away.

If I were Descartes I would probably question this very fact, but in true Cartesian fashion I would also be comforted by the knowledge that at least I exist somewhere. There is something of me somewhere that is doing all of this thinking. Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of being Descartes, so for all intended purpose I believe I am sitting at my desk.

The computer that simulates my perception and awareness of objects is suddenly switched off. I am in the position of not receiving any sense data, so I find myself in complete darkness. Regardless, I am still confident that I exist because, despite the complete lack of sensory data I can still wonder where I am and what has happened to me.

Hi Ginko;

It has been a while, and I have missed you. As to your thought experiment, I have some issues with it. Your first paragraph starts out with a kind of "Matrix" idea, then you go into the Descartes idea that "I think therefore I am", and conclude that if the simulation was turned off, you would still be.

When people think of the "Matrix", they often compare it to a solipsistic idea, but they forget that material reality still exists in the movie -- it is just that the robots are in charge of it. So if the simulation computer were turned off, I think that either:

a. You would escape like Keanu Reeves did, (but a brain can't really escape) or;
b. You would die, because the computer would no longer be giving you life support, or;
c. You would be in a deep coma.

There is a tremendous amount of debate as to whether a person still exists in different stages of coma, so I can not conclude whether or not you could think, or wonder, or be. The brain is a processor, so it processes thought -- this is thinking. If the brain had no thought, as some neurologists have concluded in some cases of coma, then is thinking possible? Does a soul think, or is it simply aware?

This is a question that regards the soul or "beon", and I don't know the answer.

G

Gee,

Beon Theory would include more options:

d. Beon would go completely unconscious, as it was before having been incorporated into a brain.

e. With the brain turned off, the antenna/tuner circuit which keeps beon attached to a brain would also be off. Free to leave, beon will have an out-of-brain experience, and if it looks around for the body it had been tricked into thinking it had, it will be confused.

Whether or not it can persist in its confused state (or perhaps learn the truth behind the mechanism that brought it to consciousness) will depend upon the level of intelligence and consciousness it had developed while incorporated into the working brain/computer simulation. If it imagined that it had dropped out of high school to sell drugs and listen to rap music, I suspect that its experience as an independently conscious beon will be brief. However if it had a productive imaginary life that included reading lots of physics and philosophy books while defending the presumed-innocent in courts of law, or became a successful pro football coach, I'd expect it to persist as the "free mind" of your OP for a longer time.

marjoramblues wrote:

marjoramblues wrote:GE:

The beon concept is taken from an old novel, "The Soul of Anna Klane," chapters from which were misused in Hofstadter and Dennett's book about human consciousness, "The Mind's I."

In your opinion, how were the chapters misused ?

Elsewhere, GE:

My first book, written under my real name, was a metaphysical story that did rather well, especially in foreign language translations, and remains a popular internet cult classic. Two of its chapters have been filmed, republished, excerpted by a respected philosopher, and used in philosophy courses about the nature of consciousness

Oh, so it seems you are Terrel Miedaner, author of 'The Soul of Anna Klane' - copyright, the Church of Physical Theology.

Are you, really ?
So - please, tell me - how were the chapters misused?
And how have they been used in philosophy courses, which ones, where and when ?

Miedaner used both chapters to present strong beliefs of the sort that would normally be associated with an atheistic position, and that is how Hofstadter employed them. However, he knew better. "...Anna Klane" was presenting a theory that, while certainly not a Christian perspective, was decidedly not atheistic. It used those chapters to show an alternative viewpoint, ultimately employing them to support its unique perspective about the relationship between soul and brain. Had Hofstadter been philosophically honest he would have mentioned as much within his discussion of those chapters.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Perhaps you've perused the compendium of ideas (Consciousness and the Universe) that featured Hammerhoff and Penrose's ideas, among many others? For the purpose of further discussion, if any, I'd like to receive your assurance that you have actually examined their theories and are not simply mentioning them because P & H have acquired authority-figure status.

You have my assurance- provided you promise not to get angry if I disagree with you.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
While I appreciate Hammerhoff's introduction of a new perspective, especially his attention to the function of glial cells (I had previously come to consider them to be important on my own), his theory does not explain all the facts that are applicable to the question of consciousness. To begin with, it fails to address the "hard problem." (My theory does.)

Actually Hameroff does address this question in detail. The short answer is that qualia is built into the spacetime geometry. I can give you his hypothesis in detail if you wish.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
Moreover, I have some fundamental issues with QM. While the quantization of energy transfers is experimentally obvious and philosophically predictable, I do not believe that the use of calculus-based mathematical forms can provide an accurate model for all quantum events. In fact, I see the "uncertainty" so commonly associated with QM models as a function of ordinary measurement errors plus the faulty mathematics used to describe some QM phenomena,

If this is the case then Penrose would be wasting his time with spin networks theory.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
After several readings I could only conclude that Hammerhoff's use of QM is a crude hand-waving sort of explanation at best.

Yes, his scientific explanations for consciousness eventually gives way to a sort of Eastern mysticism. Any science that pushes the boundaries into consciousness beyond acceptable science will end up that way. Perhaps you theory might go along those lines as well.

Greylorn Ell wrote:

The facts to which I alluded earlier are the persistent appearance of paranormal phenomena, many of which I have personally experienced. Conventional science wants this subject to go away, and dismisses the validity of most, if not all, examples of ESP. It must do so if it is to maintain its cherished position that intelligence is caused by components of the universe, rather than the other way around as I and many others propose.

About one in 30 individuals have experienced some form of out-of-body (OOB) event. Most are reluctant to discuss such experiences for fear of ridicule, but some notable individuals with no particular reason to lie have detailed such experiences, which are often life-changing for them. (e.g: Ernest Hemmingway).

This is true.

Greylorn Ell wrote:
A scientifically valid explanation for anything must incorporate ALL the data pertaining to the issue being explained. The Penrose-Hammerhoff model fails to meet this essential criterion. Every model described in the aforementioned book fails. My model meets this criterion while avoiding the flaws inherent in Descartes' theory of mind.

I am happy to take your word for that. However, I would like the opportunity to read the book and respond accordingly

Gee wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Gee, you mention Descartes in the previous post so let's try out your idea with a thought experiment.

Imagine a brain in a vat kept alive by preserving liquid. This brain is connected to a sophisticated computer. The computer supplies electrical impulses to the brain in order to simulate the observation of a range of objects. Even though I might be a brain in a vat, I believe I am sitting in a room at my computer desk typing away.

If I were Descartes I would probably question this very fact, but in true Cartesian fashion I would also be comforted by the knowledge that at least I exist somewhere. There is something of me somewhere that is doing all of this thinking. Unfortunately I do not have the luxury of being Descartes, so for all intended purpose I believe I am sitting at my desk.

The computer that simulates my perception and awareness of objects is suddenly switched off. I am in the position of not receiving any sense data, so I find myself in complete darkness. Regardless, I am still confident that I exist because, despite the complete lack of sensory data I can still wonder where I am and what has happened to me.

Hi Ginko;

It has been a while, and I have missed you. As to your thought experiment, I have some issues with it. Your first paragraph starts out with a kind of "Matrix" idea, then you go into the Descartes idea that "I think therefore I am", and conclude that if the simulation was turned off, you would still be.

When people think of the "Matrix", they often compare it to a solipsistic idea, but they forget that material reality still exists in the movie -- it is just that the robots are in charge of it. So if the simulation computer were turned off, I think that either:

a. You would escape like Keanu Reeves did, (but a brain can't really escape) or;
b. You would die, because the computer would no longer be giving you life support, or;
c. You would be in a deep coma.

There is a tremendous amount of debate as to whether a person still exists in different stages of coma, so I can not conclude whether or not you could think, or wonder, or be. The brain is a processor, so it processes thought -- this is thinking. If the brain had no thought, as some neurologists have concluded in some cases of coma, then is thinking possible? Does a soul think, or is it simply aware?

This is a question that regards the soul or "beon", and I don't know the answer.

G

Hi Gee,

I am also glad to renew our conservations as well.

In the vat thought experiment was I was hoping to answer the question, "What is it like?" For the purposes of this exercise I was wanting to know what it would be like to be a brain in a vat (still alive) with no sensory data input. There is still something that it is like to be floating in preserving liquid without any sensory data input. The problem is there is nothing to be aware of other than one's own thoughts based on previous experiences. We would be in the situation whereby we have nothing to attend to or be aware of other than previous experiences. However, I am sure that there is still something it is like to be in that situation.

I will say a bit more about this later, but for the moment I want to take up an interesting point you mentioned in relation to, The Matrix.


My understanding of the film is that the city doesn't actually exist. It exists in the heads of the millions of people stacked up in those coffin like abodes. As sophisticated as the Matrix is, it cannot provide experience. It is the same with the brain in the vat, all the computer can do is provide data and information to brains.

The Matrix can provide all the detail necessary for us to live in that particular city. Everything is there for us to experience, but we cannot attend to everything at once. The Matrix provides all of the data necessary to be aware of the city and its inhabitants in the finest detail, but we can only attend to a certain number of things and any one time. We can never catch ourselves not attending.
If we could catch ourselves not attending in the Matrix, then we would probably realize that there is something odd about our experiences.

Gee wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote: I read the Wiki article, which lacks clarity and is not well-edited. From it, I conclude that Blanco failed to distinguish the subconscious from the conscious mind. The effect is that he muddles mental functionality in his attempts to fit it into his five categories, merely expanding upon Freud's errors.

Perhaps his book would reflect his work more coherently than this Wiki article.

Greylorn;

Although we agree on many aspects of consciousness, we have a serious difference of opinion here. I know that there are a lot of people who love to hate Freud, but I think that he was a genius. My understanding of psychology has been a tremendous boon to my understandings of consciousness, and it is my considered opinion that one can not fully grasp the concept of consciousness without an understanding of psychology and the divisions of mind.

To me, the division of the conscious mind and the subconscious mind is obvious. The conscious mind is rational, logical, and is directed by us; the subconscious mind is completely reactionary and is ruled by emotion. This looks like a big difference to me. The conscious rational mind is involved in time and space and the material world; the subconscious mind has no clue as to time and space and only seems to relate to other life. This looks like another big difference to me.

I asked you in a PM what you think that the soul or "beon" actually is, and you did not answer. So I am asking again, and would also like to know what you think "mind" actually is and if they are the same thing.

G

Gee,

We have other differences of opinion that you don't know about yet. Yes, Freud was a genius. And like many other science pioneers, he got a few things wrong, and of course could not see the larger picture, because it was developed by those who put his insights to work.

The workings of any machine, however simple and complex, can be defined in terms of functions and mechanisms. Functions require mechanisms. For example, when you turn on your car's ignition switch, the engine starts. Starting an engine is a function that requires specific mechanisms-- switch, battery, starter motor, gears, and a solenoid. Should your car fail to start, the mechanic expected to fix it will first verify that these mechanisms all work properly. To do so, he must also be able to identify these mechanisms.

Now consider Freud's description of the brain, its division into conscious and subconscios minds. Those are described in his work as well as your interpretation of it, as functions. Where are the mechanisms that perform those functions?

Can you identify the brain component, or set of components, that produces the conscious mind? Probably not, because neither psychology nor neuroscience can either. Unless you'd happily take your car to a mechanic who could not identify the starter, you might rethink your acceptance of conventional opinions about the nature of mind.

Then, in your sentence, "The conscious mind is rational, logical, and is directed by us;...," what is this "us?"

My mind-model is unconventional. Briefly, beon is the mechanism of super-consciousness (a post-Freudian function that is not accepted as real by all psychologists), the sub-conscious is the cortex, and what they call the conscious mind is actually the result of beon and cortical brain working together. (Thalamus and hypothalamus are non-conscious.)

Examples of how beon and brain actually work together show some of the errors in current opinions about the subconscious. The silliest is that it does not understand space or time. Watch a football game and when the quarterback throws a successful pass while running away from three big guys who want to knock him down, to a receiver who is running downfield at an angle, with a pair of defenders closing in on him from different directions, ask yourself if you really believe that the quarterback consciously figured out the dynamically changing spatial relationships between himself and his receiver, consciously solving at least two differential equations in the process, and then consciously moved his throwing arm in precisely the right direction, and with the exact force needed, to get the ball to where his receiver was going to be 1.87 seconds of time later.

Any shrink who believes that the subconscious does not know about space (and a lot more!) is not paying attention to reality.

If my memory serves me reliably, I think that I replied to your PM by inviting you to read my book. You declined to do so but proposed that I peruse your posts in this thread. I've finished with the first five sections. It's a slow process, because I disagree with many of your positions, and the only way for me to recall ideas that I disagree with or fail to understand properly is to interact with them.

You know all about prerequisites, and their importance in the learning process. No one that I know of has the background knowledge needed to understand Beon Theory from a brief description except, maybe, Roger Penrose.

The beonconcept is extremely simple, but still requires specific knowledge in order to be understood. This knowledge includes some basic, simple physics principles. You admitted that you don't know physics. In addition to other things, my book includes the necessary physics, carefully explained. My editor had not taken so much as a high school algebra class, and she made perfect sense of it. (She now subscribes to a pop-sci magazine, and is finding serious science very interesting.)

I did not advise reading "Digital Universe -- Analog Soul" so that I could make another $2.35. I advised it because, after studying the thoughts you've expressed, I felt that you would find Beon Theory especially interesting. You are clearly qualified to understand it and the physics that you may be afraid of (few are) and will find answers to the core questions that seem to engage your mind. Beon Theory would answer similar questions from others, but most of those few who have read it are speed readers. Speed reading works for newspapers, popular magazines, and overwritten novels; it probably works for well-studied attorneys researching legal precedents. It does not work when learning new concepts.

The answers to your query are readily available, and I'm not withholding them. They have been formally presented. This forum is not the place for their explication.

Gee wrote:

Blaggard/HexHammer wrote:

Greylorn Ell wrote:The empirical evidence already does justify the existence of minds that are no longer attached to their previously inhabited bodies.

Blaggard and HexHammer;

I do not know diddly squat about thermodynamics or Laws of Physics, but I do have some information that supports Greylorn Ell's assertion that empirical evidence exists about minds that are no longer attached to their previously inhabited bodies.

Dr. Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia has researched this topic for more that 40 years, and has evidence supporting out-of-body experiences, what is commonly referred to as reincarnation, and near-death experiences. His research has been peer reviewed, and although his findings have been disputed, there have been no successful challenges to his evidence. His work does not prove these ideas because there can be no proof prior to a valid theory of consciousness; nonetheless, the evidence does exist. You can learn more at the U of V website -- there is a lot of information if you nose around, and a list of books that can be purchased, but under that list is a list of Articles that can be viewed on-line.

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinic ... s-page#NDE

G

Gee,

Thank you!

In "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" Thomas Kuhn notes that empirical evidence which does not fit into the current explanatory paradigm is always dismissed by those who have vested their time and maybe career in the current paradigm. It will not be accepted as valid evidence until someone devises a different theoretical paradigm into which it fits.

The new paradigm itself will not be accepted until the preponderance of those who have bought into it die off.

My theories provide a paradigm into which all paranormal phenomena fit. They also incorporate the recently discovered phenomenon known as "dark energy," which has been labeled "the greatest physics mystery of the 21st century." And I'm about to die off.

Greylorn