1. Walter Fritz thinks that we can get a computer to produce these non
physical effects and that it can all be reduced to objective physical
objects and processes.
2. Don Mikulecky suggests we use Rosen's catagory theory that deals with
objects and their models as relational.
3. John Kineman proposes that existence and experience are one and that
the becoming experience may be quantum related.
4. Norm McPhail submits that the qualities of non physical data somehow
transpose into effecting physical differences.
5. Alexei Sharov considers it possible that physical existance is a
condition or expression of meaning.
6. Sascha Ignjatovic postulates a Godhead/mathematics holistic system
that may be analagous to infinity. He suggests that to understand the
whole system, we ought to approach it from several perspectives.
7. Mario Vaneechoutte writes that the key to grasping the non physical
may be to understand the nature of experience, but he feels that our
brains may not be capable of doing this.
There are now seven of us that are willing to take a "wild guess" about
the nature of non physical phemomena. Since Don seems to be doing other
things at the moment, we can either continue with an open format or
attempt to compare our views in some more systematic way.
What I am suggesting is that we work together to write a single
statement that reflects all our present views. The first step would be
for each of us to make sure the above summary of our own views is
reasonably close to the mark.
Next, each of us could take a crack at combining the above views into an
organized interelated set of statements. In other words, perhaps we
could each try to set forth the similarities and differences of all our
views. Thus we would each try to summarize our combined points of view.
After we have written and sent out a few short paragraphs summarizing
these points, the next step is to see if we can combine them into one
summary statement that we all agree on. The advantages of focusing our
attention on a single text is simply that we will be working together to
achieve a common goal.
In my experience, this is more likely to yield constructive results as
opposed to aimlessly and endlessly debating back and forth. Once we
have a joint statement that outlines the main issues we would like to
focus on, perhaps we can proceed to work out a set of questions that
would help us find some of the answers we are all looking for.
To make this as simple as possible, unless we get a consensus of votes
to proceed in some systematic fashion, we will just continue with the
open newsgroup type exchanges.
Norm McPhail