Originally Posted by
Jodie
This is where the mathematics was derived to explain the phenomena, which indicated the other dimensions.
Asked and answered. "The mathematics" contains nothing to support other dimensions as you use the term. And as you've admitted (in a different thread) you have little understanding of higher mathematics, I don't think you're in a position to say it does.
Quote:
Consciousness, as far as what it is, and how it might exist in these theoretical other dimensions is strictly my belief with no evidence to back it up.
Then can we expect you to stop accusing your critics of shallow understanding and closed mindedness if they decide to disagree with your personal, unevidenced, lay opinion?
Quote:
It was in the context of being accused of lying and making the dream up...
You demanded we explain it, when you made zero effort to substantiate it. You used the expected inability to explain it for rhetorical advantage. You are being appropriately taken to task for that.
Quote:
I've said repeatedly that my idea of non corporeal consciousness that exists simultaneously in other dimensions is based strictly on my speculation.
You've also said repeatedly that it's "based on science," and berated your critics repeatedly for not taking it a seriously as you wish them to. In fact you keep advocating its alleged scientific validity in this very post. As Garrette noted, you are bold when there is no opposition and timid when there is. This is known as the Motte and Bailey argument. It is unconvincing.
Quote:
If the brain works as a receiver...
I still think his research is relevant to my theory.
Then you don't understand his research.
Quote:
The math supports the theory of other dimensions.
No. It does not support the notion of dimensions as you use the term.
Quote:
Maybe you didn't understand his research?
It is certain you don't. See, well, all my previous posts.
Quote:
I think your comment illustrates your lack of understanding of what I'm trying to describe.
Asked and answered. Your description changes willy-nilly to ensure it remains untestable according to the sciences to which you allude.
Quote:
The only significance that the dream really had was the message, and then only because it actually happened several decades after the fact.
Quote:
As my theory evolves here, the dream does become irrelevant.
Then do you agree your critics' rejection of its alleged prophetic nature becomes more and more rational?