On Jan 28, 10:05 pm, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, while I am with Craig in intuiting a serious conceptual lacuna in
> the materialist paradigm, that doesn't necessarily enamour me of his
> alternative. His talk of 'sense making' seems to me more like a 'way
> of talking about things' than a theory in the scientific or
> philosophic sense. It doesn't really seem to explain anything as such,
> but more to put a lot of language around an ill defined intuition.
> Sorry Craig if that wrongs you, but like others, I would like to hear
> something concrete your theory predicts rather than just another
> interpretive slant on the same data.

At this point my theory is like a sketch of the outline of the coast
of the new world. I can point out some mountains, some nice beaches,
but I'm only reporting what I see, I have not explored it much
personally. I don't have a laboratory or a research grant. Already I
can explain how morality and religion work, but to get into the
implications of a physics revolution is going to take more than just
me. I would think that electromagnetic equations, understood in terms
of space could be turned around into sensorimotive equations in terms
of time. This could lead to understanding how manipulate gravity in
materials or how to live in more than one body at a time.

What makes my interpretive slant different is that it works. It
reconciles mind and body, time, space, matter, and energy, order,
entropy, perception, relativity in a simple and I think accurate way.
It avoids all of the problems of metaphysical computation,
spiritualism, pseudosubstances, or amputated consciousness.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to