I'm pretty sure that's not true. I don't categorize my ideas, but I would say they are philosophical and scientific in the sense of 'science' as a search for understanding regardless of where the path leads, (but not in the sense of conforming to the assumptions of contemporary laboratory physics). I see that as just a matter of different theories requiring different methods to test.
Which assumptions do you mean? That it must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning?
Different methods of testing are fine. As long as they are scientific and reproducible.
Nobody knows if they can be verified or have any practical application yet. That's for others to work out...not my specialty. The discovery of quorum sensing and it's application to saving humanity's antibiotic exhaustion may very well be the most practical discovery of science since penicillin. Seems like reason enough to allow some curiosity in this direction.
Science is describing nature as it is, by interpreting nature phenomena that are not yet understood. Also science is using the language of nature, mathematics. As far as I can tell, your ideas don't describe an phenomenon that is not understood, nor did I see a specific description, i.e. using math or some other formal framework.
Another discipline is engineering. That is applying technical, scientific, and mathematical knowledge to design and implement materials, structures, machines, devices, systems, and processes that safely realize a desired objective or invention. And sure, some engineered things might have additional uses that were not its original goal. Anyway, I didn't really see any way your ideas qualify as engineering.
That probably leaves philosophy. However, the things you mentioned (penicillin and quorum sensing) are not part of philosophy. Actually, I don't see much in philosophy anyway. But maybe I don't understand your ideas well enough.
Of course I can grasp that. My whole point is that the Cosmos is made of pattern - arrangements - sense. Can you grasp that the exact same arrangements of sand and bricks of sand will produce not produce a flower? That's because an atom isn't just a grain of inert sand, an atom is a proto-living process with the potential to produce arrangements which are beautiful and which respond to beauty.
I have seen sand sculptures of flowers that were also quite beautiful. But that doesn't say anything. So what that we think that some arrangement is beautiful and another is not? A flower doesn't react to our judgment. Our judgment is a human thing, the flower isn't even aware of what we think. And the fact that a flower is beautiful of course doesn't mean every single atom of that flower is beautiful. In the same way, if we pluck the flower and use the same atoms to make an ugly composition of rotting plants, the atom doesn't suddenly transition in being ugly. Only the composition changes.
Human consciousness already is part of every scientific theory out there, I just think it's possible that some occasions warrant admitting it - like when you are trying to explain the Cosmos. It has nothing to do with beauty or flowers.
Most scientific theories out there have nothing to do with human consciousness. What has gravity to do with consciousness?
I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm just trying to effectively communicate my ideas. I know they aren't nonsense because they make sense to me, and nobody has been able to give me a specific counterexample of my idea so far. (Even if someone does, it wouldn't make my ideas 'nonsense', just discarded hypotheses.
Depends on your definition of nonsense. I don't see a theory that relates to measurements, nor can explain any specific element of reality and I don't see any logic in claiming that science should be broadened. For me that sounds as nonsense. The fact that you have a mental model of some concept in your mind doesn't automatically make that concept valid nor sensible. If someone in an Asylum has a clear mental model and his theory is that he is Napoleon, doesn't make it sensible, even if it makes sense to the one thinking it. Maybe it is sensible, but then your just not communicating very effectively.
I remember the first time I saw a laser in elementary school (this was 1978 so, not a red diode pointer, but a lab instrument in a briefcase) how surprised I was that there was no beam. The beam had to be sort of hinted at by spraying something in the air. Why no laser beam?
I've had a similar experience with lasers, yes.
Penkie makes perfect sense to me, he is capable of good scientific reasoning but rather than use that to explain his own ideas about what I've laid out, he is compelled to use it to explain that ideas which contradict the established conventions of recent science must be nonsense, and that anyone who dares express such an idea is automatically disqualified.
I have no ideas about what you've expressed. I cannot connect with yours. But indeed, I reject most ideas about reality that have no actual relation with that reality and the scientific method. That's not because I choose to be open minded, but because I understand very well were the 'established conventions' came from. They do not exist to mock people with different ideas or be elitists or closed minded. These methods evolved because they are the only way to make sense of reality, because they work. It is fine to extend reasoning or invent new measuring methods. But non-mathematical ideas that deviate from successful scientific theory and method, without any real reason and without any verification method or even reason.. well, sorry, but they are just senseless to me.
This is what my OMM vs ACME model predicts - that empirical, objective reasoning can become as prejudiced and intolerant as religious, subjective dogma.
You can call it prejudiced to the scientific method if you want. But I don't think these are just dogma's. The scientific method is just a way to make sense. And yes, I am pretty prejudiced to nonsense.
Also I don't think I am intolerant. I would never kill or hurt you for your ideas. I only wouldn't except them, nor would any other man of reason.
I am surprised he considers it a stalemate, so maybe his Feynman-like curiosity still has veto authority over his Randi-like certainty.
It's a stalemate, because you have the right to be wrong and I do not possess absolute certainties.
If they are wrong it's because there is some observation to be made which proves a different, more reasonable truth, and that's all I'm looking for. Now I'm gonna watch more Feynman YouTubes too.
Then your ideas first have to lead to predictions that can be proved or disproved. But this will probably take a mathematical modeling of reality and I don't think you can do that. In that case there is just nothing reasonable that can be said about your them. So again, they are senseless in that respect. Maybe it helps if you make them more concrete with the right math, and test them against reality. If that can be even done.
Also, truth cannot be more reasonable than it is. It is what it is.