We are trapped between two paradigms concerning the nature of reality. Behind us is the Physicalist point of view that consciousness is an emergent quality of biological brain. Before us is the growing realization that reality is consciousness.
For those of us who accept the evidence that we actually are spirit having a human experience, it is clear that the old explanations are the last gasps of the dying Physicalist paradigm.
I do try to move the evolution along. For instance, I find ways to show that “spirit in a human body” is really a cooperative effort between two minds—the discerning intellect of our immortal self and the morphogenic mind of our human avatar. I have revived the “etheric” concept to tread the narrow way between religion and metaphysics. In my writing, I refer to “our human’s instincts” rather than “my human instinct.” Some parapsychologists like holography as an analog for the etheric (aka Psi Field) so as to say, “here is everywhere.” I argue that clearly the more correct perspective for consciousness is “everywhere is here.” That is the practical definition of “nonlocality” for the new paradigm.
Models are tools for describing and testing principles. For instance, the model airplane in a wind tunnel helps estimate behavior of a full-scale version. An electronic schematic is a model. I can usually tell both function and needed components by examining a device schematic.
Cosmologies are models but typically on a global scale. For instance, the cosmology used by astronomers is popularly known as the “Big Bang” from which all of physical reality emerged. I suppose you can think of the Implicit Cosmology I work with to describe our spiritual nature, the nature of reality and our relationship with it, an alternate cosmology. But however we look at it, the term “cosmology” tends to lock us in the old paradigm.
I also suspect that my readers tend to tune out when I start talking about cosmologies.
Simulators are intended to help us become familiar with a mechanism (airplane, car, surgical tool) by letting us test how we interact with the simulated environment.
My point is that the model concept is neutral, but the cosmology concept carries a lot of baggage from the old paradigm. The simulator concept is also neutral.
I am thinking about calling the Implicit Cosmology a Consciousness Simulator. I routinely test the Implicit Cosmology by using it to help answer questions about reality. That is why I answered more than 400 questions on Quora. In fact, it is a reality simulator.
I am confident the emerging paradigm will be based on the idea that reality is consciousness. Calling the model I work with a consciousness simulator might help people understand my work. That is important because, after working with it for so many years, I am convinced that the model is also an important tool for personal development (aka seeking).
I could really use your input on this. How do you see the future of the study of things currently known as paranormal? Is “Consciousness Simulator” more approachable and understandable than “Implicit Cosmology”? What terminology would work better for you?
