Quote:
Originally Posted by Serge Patlavskiy  WELCOME TO THE GENERAL THEORY CLUB
"No-one has as yet come up with any evidence for a theory of consciousness that will satisfy the demands of the various sceptics..." [2]. Or, as Richard Amoroso puts the problem: "Science is inadequate to complete the task of explaining consciousness without being drastically reformulated" [3]. So, the General Theory Club aims to unite the scientists who make attempts to construct their general theories. Hitherto, in the most scientific disciplines like Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. the task was to construct one theory which must satisfy everybody. But, in case of the complex phenomena studies, we say about the necessity to form a chain of mutually compatible intellectual products of different authors which may use the different notional bases, different theoretical (knowledge) bases, different systems of proofs, etc., but such that share basic principles in their construction.
In case of Nonstatanalysis the aim is formulated as two following assertions:
1) to show that there is nothing outside the integral and objectively existing Reality; wiz., that there are no parallel realities and that all phenomena belong to Reality we live in;
2) to show that the general Law of Reality exists, simultaneously as the condition and the transitional result of the process of cognition.
The criteria of approach are as follows:
1) determination of the limits of the meta-theory's field of expediency, or meta-theory's canon;
2) formation of a base of notions (prime concepts);
3) elaboration of the theoretical base of the process of cognition including basic ideas and the system of proofs;
4) level-by-level exposition of material, and consecutive exposition on each level;
5) regard of reliable results of scientific experiment as starting-points in working out the meta-theory;
6) elaboration of questions of epistemological, theoretical, hypothetical and empirical verifications of the meta-theory;
7) possibility of post-development of the meta-theory in case understanding of the extremely complex phenomena is required;  compatibility with other authors' intellectual products (meta-theories), created under similar criteria of approach.
So, the authors of General Theories are welcome to join the General Theory Club. The participants' versions of the General Theory must have its own respective aim and the correspondent criteria of approach, and to be inner non-contradictory.
Best regards,
Serge Patlavskiy |
Thank you, Serge, for starting up a new thread, using excellent scientific language. I hope that all of us here at Toequest can adhere to your request and stay within the lines you proscribe. But it is going to be a difficult task.
What I definitely like is that you use the word meta-theory because it means you understand the complexity of formulating a theory of everything that is both grounded and all-encompassing. However, I must immediately confront you with a question. Because if the universe can scientifically not be replicated, why should we insist that we deliver evidence that consciousness exists? I am here, sitting behind my computer, drinking tea, and that is reason enough for me to state that I exist, and that I am conscious enough to type and sip tea. Why insist on getting evidence for this, when the real test (of recreating the universe) can never be pulled?
And this is not to ridicule your effort, because I would definitively like to be part of that effort. My answer to some of your questions is one word (okay, actually two): self-based. Our universe is a self-based place. Yet if we want to find the overall groundwork as a unifying situation, an impossibility occurs. The overall groundwork cannot be self-based if the parts are also self-based, each self-based onto themselves. So far, the variety of self-based aspects has the clear upperhand among scientific results. Yet scientists are nevertheless looking for that single unified framework - almost like religious leaders wanting us to follow them wherever they go.
I would like to say to Andrei that I may be in his camp, too, but possibly on the other side, for I consider gravity be far too overrated (I have doubts about black holes - though not about them being holes, only strong doubts about the enormous gravitational aspects of them). But I like your language better, Serge, because it has that scientific edge.