[Benedict Broere]

Lloyd, I think some misunderstanding is going on. You are suggesting critique that to me is hard to connect with the content of my website. Do I suggest this world is emotional? Do I take ‘false emotional assumptions’? I can’t see where.
You stress the importance of cognitive sciences. Well, what do I use a lot? Data derived from cognitive sciences.

Do I want to improve human conduct? I use scientific data and bring them in a bigger pattern in order to explain things. And I certainly do not want to set up some kind of totalitarian state.

‘Emotional-materialism’. I have to look it up, but at first glance it sounds like ‘McDonalds’.

You speak of ‘a world shaking scientific idea’. You know of course, and history shows, that the reception of new idea’s can differ a lot, varying from full enthusiasm to complete ignoration. Thomas Kuhn and consorts investigated this, with interesting result.

Some years ago I did a course in metaphysics. The first subject the professor came up with was ‘meaning’. When does it occur? Lot’s of Heidegger after that, and Gademar, Dilthey and so on. I can assure you, ‘meaning’ means a lot to people. And it generates a lot of books, that are intensely studied.
I can’t follow you on this ‘thermodynamics-subject’. But I also very much like clarity in logical connections and causes.

May I add some general remarks on this aos-project?
I introduced it with a critique on naturalism. To me it’s hard to understand that, as is suggested by naturalism, this universe generated itself – energy and order included. (It reminds me of this tale about the Baron of Munchhausen, who lifted himself up out of the mud by pulling at his hair.) So I introduced ‘creativity’. A concept in my perception, much like the concept ‘divine force’ as introduced by John Searle, unifying the main forces: gravity, electromagnetical force and the strong and weak nuclair forces.

To further explain my assumption I tell on my website a bit more. About mind and worldview and about a general pattern in that, that seems to be the same as a general pattern in this universe itself. For this I only use scientific data and general tools of mathematics.

So it’s quite simple really. While critique can break in on all kinds of places in this building of ideas I have erected. Please do. Because maybe I’m mad, blind for things, seeing them in a wrong perspective.