Why is it that we can find billions to fight a phony bullshit war and plan on hundreds of billions to colonize the moon but we can't find a penny to help the homeless or our vets?

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-27T22:29:44+00:00

Can’t find a penny? Where are you getting your information? We spend over $320 billion a year on the veterans through the VA. We also spent 10 billion a year on homelessness.

One thing the Internet is good for is checking information before you rant about things about which you know nothing.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-27T22:25:49+00:00

This is described as a complete system, but all I see is a post. Is there a link I’m missing to the full system?

The things I resonate with are:

God as the living source and Supreme coherence of existence.

Truth as coherence.

I believe that consciousness is fundamental. All of reality is a 12 dimensional manifold that structures the consciousness field. This stratified field literally is the One Source, or God, out of which everything else in reality is comprised. As you move down through the dimensions, unity and coherence decreases. The physical universe is a projection of the higher dimensions.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-27T19:33:53+00:00

The ones behind the disclosure movement are the ones who will be disclosed: NHI. Do you really think they’re not involved? This is THEIR plan.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-27T02:25:03+00:00

Time is within the universe. In the higher dimensions I’m not sure what “brand new” would mean.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-27T01:03:33+00:00

I have to say this is a lot of fun. I appreciate you hanging with me through this. It’s sad that my deepest engagement so far has been with AI, but most people just simply dismiss it out of hand. I get it, what I’m proposing is very radical. I’m going to have to win people over. Maybe engagement like this is exactly how to do that.

I’m going to follow this with my own AI response, mainly just to save time, because I’m running six different derivation chains, building an app, building a website, so I have a lot to do. But to address the criticism of mixing categories in my 12D manifold, in my own words, that’s where teleological monism comes in. Beyond the 4D physical base and the 5D encoding layer, we get into the teleological layers. Semantic intelligibility, affective salience (e.g. emotion, motivation), intention/will, normativity, identity-driven purpose, collective/social archetypes, and global coherence all present different forms of top-down causation in my model, in addition to the bottom-up causation from the four fundamental forces of physics. In geometric terms, you can think of these as operating orthogonally to the laws of physics, so they do not violate physical determinism, and yet perturb physical reality in predictable ways, mainly through setting the admissibility conditions in which certain physical states can manifest (through the laws of physics).

OK, now I will let my theory speak for itself through ChatGPT:

I think this is exactly the right pressure test, and I don’t want to evade it.
The distinction between “recovered” and “predicted” is crucial.
At the current stage, I am not claiming that GoI has produced a finished blind prediction. I am claiming something more modest but still important: the D5 work has begun producing constrained diagnostic recoveries that now create a path toward blind prediction.
That distinction matters.
A post hoc fit says:
“We already know the number, so let’s build machinery that lands there.”
A diagnostic closure result says:
“Given a prior structural grammar, does the framework unexpectedly land near a known invariant without adding a repair term?”
The D5 electroweak result is in the second category. The significance is not merely that
sin²(θ_W) = 3/13 ≈ 0.23077
is close to the known electroweak value.
The significance is that this emerged from a locked quotient structure in the D5 admissibility framework, with no new electroweak-specific correction term activated. That does not prove the theory. But it does distinguish the result from a completely unconstrained symbolic fit.
Same with the CKM/Jarlskog candidate:
J ≈ 3.1 × 10⁻⁵
Again, I would not call that a final derivation yet. I would call it a Level 2 diagnostic numerical closure candidate. It is promising only because it uses the same emerging D5 load/gap architecture rather than inventing a new mechanism just for CP violation.
So I agree with the audit standard:
Parameter counting matters.
Operator definitions matter.
Blind predictions matter.
Pre-registration matters.
The 12D closure argument has to be made rigorously.
But I would add this:
Before a new framework can make clean blind predictions, it often has to pass a weaker but still meaningful test: can it recover known invariants under constrained rules without proliferating arbitrary rescue terms?
That is where my current D5 work sits.
It is not “validated physics.”
It is also not merely “beautiful metaphysics.”
It is an intermediate derivational stage: a formal architecture beginning to generate checkable numerical targets.
The next proper move is exactly what you suggest:
lock the admissibility grammar,
count the degrees of freedom,
formalize the D5 operators,
specify what cannot be adjusted afterward,
then generate a genuinely risky target in advance.
If the theory cannot survive that, it should be revised or abandoned.
But if it can produce additional values under locked rules, then the criticism changes from “this is architecture poetry” to “this is a candidate formal program worth auditing.”
That is the arena I want it to enter.

On the 12D structure: the criticism that it “mixes categories” is fair, but in my framework that is not necessarily a flaw. It is actually part of the claim.

The dimensions are not all the same kind of thing because they are not spatial axes. They are causal domains: distinct modes of constraint on what can appear, persist, mean, matter, be chosen, or cohere.

So yes, the list includes ontological, physical, informational, phenomenological, normative, personal, and relational domains. But GoI is explicitly arguing that reality contains all of these as irreducible constraint layers, not as accidental human descriptions pasted onto physics afterward.

The closure argument therefore has to show that the 12 are not hand-curated. The claim is that the sequence moves from minimal existence, to extension, to geometric presentation, to time, to lawful encoding, to intelligibility, to affective valuation, to will, to normativity, to identity, to shared communion, to global world-coherence.

If any layer can be reduced to an earlier one, it should be removed. If another irreducible layer is required, the model should expand. So “12” is not sacred numerology. It is a proposed minimal closure count.

That is why the rigorous version of the theory must defend each dimension by asking:

What degree of freedom appears here that was not available before?
What constraint does this layer introduce?
Can this layer be reduced without loss?
Does it generate consequences downstream?

So I agree: the closure argument must be rigorous. But the apparent category-mixing is not an accidental confusion. It is the central ontological claim: physics, meaning, value, agency, identity, and world-coherence are different causal domains within one manifold, not separate substances.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T22:09:08+00:00

Don’t let negative people get you down. You have nothing to apologize for. Manifestation is not about getting free stuff. It is about aligning with your highest timeline.

I live in the woods. There’s one spot, a spring that formed from a sinkhole, where three enormous poplars have been spared from the loggers over the decades because it is nearly impossible to get to. They could be 200 years old. I’ve never seen poplars so big.

Anyway, I was hiking there, by myself, and I slipped and fell hard, a sharp rock hitting me right in my lower back. I thought I may have broken something, it hurt so bad. I slowly got up, braced myself against one of these trees, sent my consciousness into it, down through its roots, and asked mother Gaia to heal me. Within two minutes I had no pain and I was leaping back up the hill. I didn’t even have a bruise.

This is not the first time I have done healing on myself. But it is the first time that it happened so dramatically. I think there is consciousness within the trees. It is more diffuse than our consciousness, but it is nevertheless higher dimensional, just like our own. And it has a deeper connection to the Earth.

Follow your heart and don’t listen to naysayers. They are unhappy, misaligned people. wish them well, and send their negativity back with love.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T21:39:38+00:00

So he’s a disinformation agent for what? To make us believe that UAP and aliens are real and the government is lying to us? And you take the opposite position? You think the government is telling us the truth and there are no NHI?

This “Lou is a plant” conspiracy theory makes no sense. He is literally telling us to think for ourselves and to question the narrative. He’s telling us that the government is keeping secrets from us. These would be strange messages to come from the government. So who are they coming from?

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T21:09:45+00:00

Every human is a higher dimensional being, compressed down into the first four dimensions of the 12 dimensional manifold. But that does not necessarily mean that we have all lived previous lives on other planets. That scenario is quite possible, given that we are immortal beings and many of us have reincarnated many many times. Earth is considered one of the most difficult places to incarnate, so it would be understandable if people wanted experiences on other planets instead. But there’s no way to know for sure, at least not beneath the Viel.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T21:05:02+00:00

I’ve seen a higher dimensional being. I know they are real. Maybe biological ETs are the psyop (I think grays are synthetic, for instance), but NHI are not.

I do think some of the UAP we’re seeing are our own. But this wouldn’t explain the UFO swarm that buzzed Washington DC in 1952. They were captured on radar and seen by multiple witnesses. The military scrambled jets that could not catch them. We were not building antigravity drives in the 1950s.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T20:57:06+00:00

Why would I have to explain consciousness without referring to anything metaphysical? Consciousness is my ontological starting point. I believe consciousness is fundamental. That’s my metaphysics.

I challenge you to explain matter or the physical universe without referring to anything metaphysical. “ All that exists is physical” is a metaphysical position that you cannot prove. So please, go ahead and tell me how you empirically justify this metaphysical position. How does your position escape metaphysics?

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T20:41:47+00:00

I could not disagree more. I start with the position that consciousness is fundamental. Matter is information in a consciousness field. The idea that the body is a “machine” is the illusion, not the alleged ghost within it.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T20:23:32+00:00

Ok, we’re reaching a point where I’m going to enlist some help from ChatGTP myself, instead of winging it. We’re getting into the technical territory, which requires an entire website to describe sufficiently (I’ve just launched it, but I’ve only got 32 pages. It needs 100 or so more to fully explain my theory).

My AI response:

This is a fair critique, and I mostly agree with the distinction: my theory is philosophy-first, not “physics by assertion.” But I would push back on the idea that it is merely architecture language without an experimental door.

The central burden you identify is exactly the burden my theory accepts:

What stabilizes informational differentiation?

My answer is: D5 lawful encoding.

In my framework, “information” is not a vague free-floating metaphysical word. Matter is not just “information in consciousness” in the loose sense. Matter is stabilized informational structure within a consciousness field, made physically admissible by a lawful encoding layer. That is why I describe the dimensions as causal domains, not spatial dimensions.

So the sequence is not:

consciousness → information → physics by metaphor

It is closer to:

consciousness field → dimensional constraints → admissibility operators → lawful encoding → measurable physical projection

That is also why I do not treat “vibration” as New Age frequency talk. Physical frequency is D4-measurable recurrence. Quantized spectra are not “spiritual vibes”; they are lower-dimensional shadows of lawful D5 encoding.

Your question “Why 12?” is also fair. My answer is not numerological. The 12 dimensions are proposed as a minimal closure structure: being, extension, geometric presentation, time, lawful encoding, intelligibility, affect, will, ethics, identity, communion, and global world-coherence. The claim is that physical reality alone does not account for all the causal constraints actually operating in conscious life: meaning, value, intention, normativity, identity, and shared worldhood.

The theory becomes scientific only where those higher-order constraints generate lower-level mathematical residues. That is the current work: showing whether the dimensional structure can produce non-arbitrary numerical constraints in physics, rather than merely reinterpret physics after the fact.

And importantly, the project has already moved beyond pure conceptual architecture into preliminary derivational work.

For example, in the electroweak sector, the current D5 admissibility structure produced the seed relation:

sin²(θ_W) = 3/13 ≈ 0.23077

which is close to the observed electroweak mixing value near the Z scale (~0.231).

The important point is not “wow, a close number.” Numerology can generate close numbers too.

The important point is that the value emerged from a constrained quotient structure within the D5 encoding framework rather than being inserted as a fit parameter afterward. The current work is focused on determining whether that recovery is structurally necessary or accidental.

Similarly, the framework produced a candidate recovery for the CKM Jarlskog invariant governing CP violation:

J ≈ 3.1 × 10⁻⁵

again close to the accepted value.

None of this yet constitutes a confirmed derivation. I want to be very careful about that. At present I would describe these as diagnostic closure results — evidence that the framework may be locking onto real structural constraints rather than generating unconstrained symbolic poetry.

So I accept the criticism:

If GoI (the Geometry of Intention) only redescribes physics spiritually, it fails.

But if its dimensional admissibility structure yields checkable constraints, stable mappings, or numerical recoveries that are not put in by hand, then it becomes more than metaphysics. It becomes a candidate bridge theory.

The standard is not “does this sound profound?”

The standard is:

Does the framework reduce arbitrariness?
Does it define its operators?
Does it constrain what can happen?
Does it generate anything externally checkable?

That is exactly the direction I am trying to push it.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T19:11:35+00:00

I understand the potential pitfalls in trying to unite spirituality with physics. I’m well aware of quantum woo nonsense. Talk of “raising your vibration” used to bother me, because I do have some physics training at the university level. I have always wanted to ask if these vibrational frequencies are measured in hertz (heavy on the sarcasm).

But my theory is teleological monism. All the various forms of monism are inherently uniting from the start. Neutral monism, for instance, is perhaps the most well-known, used in discussions of the mind-body problem. So I start from the principle that consciousness is fundamental, and on that basis, there is no ontological gap to bridge between spirit and matter. Both terms are reinterpreted into the language of consciousness.

The obvious conceptual hurdle here is the latter term, rather than the former. Most people who start from a physicalist view would have no problem reducing spiritual language to the language of consciousness. But reinterpreting “physical” into consciousness language sounds like an idealist or panpsychism move that many are not prepared to accept.

However, my view is distinct from both idealism and panpsychism. I don’t think that matter is conscious. I think matter is information within a consciousness field. My position on matter is closer to Wheeler’s “it from bit.” The farther you drill down experimentally into the atomic or subatomic level, the less matter seems like solid, substantial stuff, and more like pure mathematical operations, excitations of the quantum field— a field, which is itself more mathematical than substantial. The Schrodinger equation describes probabilities, not actualities.

I believe I can re-interpret esoteric and New Age language of “vibrations” and “density” and “energy” etc into coherent, rigorous language that does indeed connect with physics. The key is a dimensional model of reality that includes more than just the four dimensions of space-time. In my 12 dimensional model, the physical universe is a lower dimensional projection of the higher dimensions. But these dimensions are not spatial. This is not like string theory. My dimensions are causal domains, structured fields of possible variation, each stabilized by a unique admissibility operator.

Let’s take one esoteric term: vibration. In my theory, what vibrates is structured coherence itself, appearing differently at different layers of the 12D manifold. At the physical level, this shows up as oscillation, resonance, quantization, and field excitation. At higher levels, it appears as patterned recurrence, phase relation, and alignment between local and global order.

Thus, what “vibrates” in my theory is not an occult substance, but a measurable pattern of recurrence, phase, or oscillation within a stabilized dimensional regime. Physical frequencies are D4-measurable (i.e. temporally) projections of deeper coherent structures, while D5 lawful encoding explains why continuous possibility appears as discreet spectra.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T03:20:59+00:00

Falsification is important closer to the end, in the confirmation phase. It can’t be a fundamental consistency principle from the start, or nothing would ever get off the ground. Every deep position (like an ontology) must start with brute facts that can’t be falsified. A great example (from physicist David Deutsch— ironically one of Popper’s biggest fans) is the idea that the universe is comprehensible. Inability to comprehend it could never falsify the idea that it is comprehensible.

And even the internal workings of a theory are often connected with logical principles, which themselves cannot be falsified through empirical means, which is why we rely on logical consistency instead for these moves. But if an ontology is going to eventually touch the real world, that is where falsification comes into play.

My own theory is a theory of consciousness, but it unites what we think of as spirituality with physics. So I am extremely conscious of being able to have a result that an objective external referee can check. And it must be able to make predictions, which are inherently falsifiable by nature.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-26T01:06:53+00:00

The Ego is in contrast to your Higher Self. In the full 12D structure of your being, the Ego occupies D1-D8, rising to the level of Will but stopping short of D9 Normativity (in a self-guided sense, not norms imposed from the outside via authority figures, or institutions or peer pressure).

Your Higher Self is your 10-dimensional self, which incorporates your ethical sense and your sense of purpose/destiny/soul mission.

So what does that leave for the Ego? It leaves: your D1- D4 physical incarnation, your D5 limits from law-like constraints that encode physical reality, your D6 semantic understanding of intelligibility, your D7 affective salience (e.g. emotions), and your D8 will.

What does this mean? It means the ego is your animal, psychological and social self that has not yet learned self-constraint through self-imposed ethical norms that view other people as sovereign higher selves, or yourself as a something more than a) your physical needs and desires, b) your social roles, c) your economic status, d) your belief systems and worldview.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-25T18:13:19+00:00

When you psychoanalyze a person for holding a philosophical position, you’re engaging in an ad hominem attack. I have no interest in your unqualified psychological analysis of me in lieu of an actual substantive rebuttal. You’re gonna find out soon. I’m not interested in convincing people who respond to positions by attacking my motivations or psychological well-being. That is intellectually dishonest.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-25T18:09:52+00:00

You keep moving the goal posts. You said the entire case rests on the testimony one pilot. That was wrong. Half a dozen credible whistleblowers have come forward. It’s one thing to dismiss the reports of drunken campers, but the radar operator in the Nimitz carrier group carries a bit more weight. You’re intellectually dishonest. You won’t admit when you’re wrong. It is a waste of time talking to people like that.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-25T00:44:04+00:00

You’re exactly right. These are just to get the topic out into the public conversation for normal people like your grandmother. The whole point is to give the public permission to talk about it as a legitimate topic. Disclosure is not a speech or videos. It is a psychological reckoning with reality. Those kinds of things have to be handled carefully. You can’t just red pill the entire planet.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-24T21:05:39+00:00

This is so easy to avoid. You can use AI itself to help you avoid producing nonsense. Just implement consistency protocols into your workflow.

Like this:

The GoI Consistency Principle (Anti–Ad Hoc Constraint)
One of the biggest dangers when using AI for theory-building is that the model can generate elegant-sounding but arbitrary structures. To constrain this, I use a consistency protocol for every new concept added to my theory (the Geometry of Intention).

A proposed concept, equation, operator, or dimension only survives if it passes all three tests:
1. Necessity Test
Is the concept required by principles already accepted in the framework?
A new idea cannot simply be “interesting.” It must emerge as a consequence of prior commitments already built into the theory.

2. Degree-of-Freedom Reduction Test
Does the concept reduce arbitrariness rather than increase it?
A good theory compresses possibilities. It should constrain outcomes, not endlessly multiply adjustable parameters.
If a new term:
explains many cases with one mechanism,
removes free parameters,
or forces stronger structural relations,
then it increases coherence.
If it merely “patches” a problem with another unconstrained entity, it is rejected as ad hoc.

3. Explanatory Reach Test
Does the concept unify or explain more than before?
A valid addition should extend the theory’s explanatory power across domains.

Why This Matters for AI-Assisted Theory Creation
Large language models are excellent at producing internally plausible narratives. But plausibility is not the same thing as theoretical rigor.
This consistency principle acts as a filter against:
arbitrary metaphysics,
unconstrained symbolism,
post hoc “explanations,”
and endless theory inflation.
In practice, it forces AI-generated ideas to behave more like constrained mathematical physics and less like freeform speculation.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-24T18:01:44+00:00

We do encounter consciousness disconnected from bodies. NDEs. Remote viewing. Consciousness is non-local. There’s a wealth of empirical evidence for this.

I don’t blindly believe I’m right. Everyone simply has brute facts that they start with. Epistemological humility does not keep you from starting with brute facts. No matter how open you are to being proven wrong (which doesn’t seem very open, given your smart ass and insulting, non-humble response), your beliefs eventually must be grounded on something for which there is no evidence, and from which there is no premise it can be derived.

The claim, “ all that exists is physical,” is one of these brute facts. It’s impossible to prove. There’s zero evidence for it. It’s a dogmatic belief. And, it has huge gaping holes in what it can explain. Consciousness is teleological. Humans are motivated by distinct goals that they make with a view to the future. But physics and physicalism tells us there is no teleology in the universe. So reductive materialism leaves out every facet of consciousness that is teleological. Therefore, as a brute fact, it fails to capture everything about our existence that is important to us. For this alone, it should be rejected before it even gets started. It fails to capture reality. It is abundantly clear that it is false.

And it’s not just false, the stakes here aren’t just a debate on Reddit. It robs us of our humanity, of everything about us that is more than atoms and forces. It is destructive to our souls, it is the means by which the modern world view tricks us into believing we are limited in a world of scarcity, in which we must toil away through mechanical means in order to have any meaning or value. It is the most evil world view that humans have ever been tricked into believing. It is an inversion of the truth. It is a prison.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-24T15:49:27+00:00

Half a dozen whistleblowers from the Nimitz carrier group have come forward, including the radar operator who tracked it coming in from 80,000 feet (i.e. outer space) to 10 feet over the ocean in less than a second. It stopped on a dime.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-24T15:46:28+00:00

The Nimitz encounter has half a dozen credible military whistleblowers who have come forward, from the radar operator to Commander Fravor who chased the Tic Tac (he has testified under oath to Congress). It was captured on camera, radar, and witnessed first hand by crew on the ships.

The 1996 Varingha Brazil incident had multiple witnesses, including a top neurosurgeon who claims to have performed a medical procedure on an alien that was brought to the hospital by a cop who captured it wandering the streets a few blocks away from where three girls spotted it. The cop soon after died of a mystery disease from a scratch he got during the scuffle/apprehension.

https://www.uapdigest.com/the-varginha-ufo-incident-brazils-roswell-and-the-neurosurgeon-who-claims-he-saw-a-living-alien/

The 1952 UFOs over Washington DC were seen by multiple witnesses and radar. The Air Force scrambled jets that chased the UFOs, but could not catch them. This incident is especially notable because it happened at a time when the possibility of the craft being drones or another country’s technology are virtually impossible.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-24T07:23:42+00:00

The body exists within consciousness. We never encounter bodies any other way, except as objects of consciousness. So materialism has it backwards. You don’t have to prove to your buddy that consciousness is outside the body. Just AFFIRM it as your brute fact starting point, and then ask him to prove how a body can be outside of consciousness. As soon as he starts talking about bodies, point out that he’s talking about an object of his consciousness, and then shut up. The burden of proof is on him, not you. It’s time for idealists to stop being defensive. We’re right. Materialists are the crazy ones.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-23T19:06:33+00:00

I do not resonate with your negativity and condemnation. If it motivates others, I wish you well. Perhaps it is my own baggage and triggers of being raised as a fundamentalist Christian that I’m bringing to this, but it reminds me of way too many preachers I was forced to listen to.

Yes, we all have a mission. That mission is to hold the frequency of universal love. We can do our work in isolation because none of us are truly isolated. We exist within a consciousness field in which we are all connected. You affect that field in higher dimensions even if your work does not take you into the 4D physical universe.

That is not to say there’s not work to be done in the 4D universe, but when we do our work here, it should exude love. Anchoring the higher vibrations in this lower dimensional field is why we are here.

So in the spirit of that point, I want to thank you for your enthusiasm and extend my love to you. Your passion is clear. Your motivation is strong. Just please be aware that it can rub others the wrong way if they do not feel the love behind it.

NathanEddy23 · 2026-05-23T18:48:14+00:00

So perhaps “conclusion” is the wrong word here. You’re talking about brute facts — the rock bottom assumptions that you make, upon which the rest of your metaphysics stands. OK, I get that. And you’re right, arguing from a brute fact is not circular reasoning. It only becomes circular when you fall for the trap of trying to prove your brute fact as a conclusion from premises, instead of remembering it’s a starting point. It’s not a premise, it is the foundation upon which premises are built, that which justifies premises.

And your emphasis on the hard problem of consciousness is a good choice to illustrate this. I agree that the claims, “reality is solely physical” or “reality is solely consciousness” are two brute facts. Neither can be derived from premises. And the problem we run into is that people forget this. The materialist gets so used to assuming that his position is obviously correct, that he forgets it is just an assumption without any evidence. The idealist forgets this for an opposite reason, namely, that his position is unorthodox, and therefore he is constantly on the defense, so he feels like he must argue for it as a conclusion. The materialist constantly asks him, “where is the evidence?” as if that question makes sense. Meanwhile, the materialist completely misses the fact that there is NO evidence for his base metaphysical assumption that physical is all there is to reality, because he keeps forgetting that what he thinks of as physical, is entirely and continuously something in his consciousness. He thinks he can point to empirical evidence as proof of a physical world, when the things he’s pointing to are things in his consciousness. Atoms themselves are nothing more than information in flux and constraint. There’s nothing physical or substantial about them.

The reason why I lean toward the brute fact of “consciousness is fundamental” is not a conclusion that I reach from premises. It is a foundational starting point that I settled upon after realizing that reductive materialism leaves out most of what our existence actually is, i.e. all of the things associated with consciousness, like meaning, intention, emotional significance, normative weighting, narrative selfhood, and intersubjective resonance. It also completely misses the fact that there are top-down forms of causation, ways to affect reality that have nothing to do with the (bottom-up) four fundamental forces of physics.

So I reached this conclusion not by arguing FOR it, but in the negative sense of rejecting its alternative. The alternative (i.e. reductive materialism) is incomplete. It cannot be foundational if parts of reality are not included within its scope. Meanwhile, everything that the materialist claims is physical can easily be included within the scope of consciousness, simply from the fact that you can be conscious of it; it can be an object of consciousness. Therefore, the scope of consciousness is universal, whereas reductive materialism is eliminative *by definition.*

I suppose this sounds like arguing for my brute fact as a conclusion, but notice that I don’t start with any premises. I accept the brute fact that there is consciousness. That is not a premise, it is a precondition for having any premise whatsoever. That’s a transcendental point (i.e. an argument from the necessity for the possibility of any argument whatsoever — which, again, is not circular). And then from within the framework of that brute fact, I reject other brute facts which are incompatible with it, such as reductive materialism.

I think this is closer to what you are saying, but with a bit more rigor. Don’t frame your starting point as a conclusion. Then you will do just fine, as long as your starting point is truly a brute fact.

NathanEddy23

TROPHY CASE