Your info says that I should explain a little about myself. I am a philosopher and therefore just don't think I am very important, so if you must know more about me, you can go to my web site at www.micromike.com and learn a little about me as a human being. But what I do think is important is ideas, and I would ask that you would very carefully consider the models I am about to propose.

Since this group is entitled theories and the focus of the group is "theories of intuition and consciousness," I would like to propose a new model for consciousness and then explore the relationship to intuition. However, any model of consciousness can only be a subset of a model of physical systems. Therefore I must first walk you through the salient points of a new model of physical systems that I have proposed which clearly gives room for consciousness and intuition to exist within the rules of science. One of my principle goals in forming this new system was to make sure it allowed my thoughts to be real, since they seemed real to me. Therefore, I will mirror all of my comments to the group called "physics" so that they might "ride along" in this discussion, if this develops into a discussion.

The model I have developed is called the "Gravionic Model Of Physical Systems." Philosophically there are several major principles upon which the model is based. First, we must consider the cosmos we live in to be infinite in nature. This is one of the most basic of all assumptions, yet the current model of cosmology assumes a finite cosmos, because a single big bang, by definition, is a finite situation. There are many other arguments for infinity, but this is the "short" course. After many years in the computer industry, I can tell you that assumptions are usually the best place to solve logical problems. In assuming a finite cosmos, scientists have limited themselves in their ability to understand the world around us. Therefore, the first assumption of any open-minded person who seeks the truth, must be a belief in the infinite and all the possibilities that concept brings to our thoughts.

The second major area of disagreement I have with current science revolves around the definition of what constitutes one whole thing. What does it mean for something to exist or to be real? One of my basic principles is that existence requires not only identity, but also a relationship to the rest of the universe in question. Further, I propose that in the real world, mass represents identity and gravity represents relationship. Since all things are made of energy, some of this energy must be used to make the mass and some of it must be used to make gravity, and in more complicated systems, we usually have energy transferring between and in systems. Thus, Einstein was wrong when he said that E=mc^2 was the conversion formulae of energy to mass. This equation describes no real system, since gravity has not been included. Thus, to talk of any system in its entirety we must include gravity, so the corrected equation becomes E=gmc^2. Mass and gravity are always proportional in nature and can be no less so in Einstein's no famous "wrong" equation. Every day our planet receives 4 and 1/2 lbs. of sunlight, yet Einstein doesn't allow for the corresponding increase in gravity that has to occur when one adds 4 and 1/2 lbs. to our planet. Thus to consider any system in its entirety, one must consider the gravity also.

The next major area of disagreement concerns the science of today ignoring gravity in all situations except those dealing with large objects. My philosophy clearly shows that since gravity represents the relationship of all things that exist in a universe, the gravity must "know about" or be involved in every exchange of energy that takes place in the real world. This means that all of chemistry is the study of the gravionic connections of electrons, more or less, and that biology too, must be the study of the changing of the connections of gravity within living physical system.

Next is one of the biggest and "wrongest" assumptions of all. The assumption that gravity has an infinite speed. Mankind does this, because when he wants to solve a problem, he always defines the coordinate system first and he always assumes that the coordinate system "propagates" at an infinite speed. But nature doesn't have this luxury. Nature must define each point from that point outward, for this is the essence of relativity. I say that nature does this with gravity and that therefore gravity must propagate at a speed that is faster than the fastest thing that moves through this coordinate system. Philosophically, I think I can prove that contradictions in reality would occur, unless gravity can propagate at a rate that is, in fact, much faster than the speed of light. Therefore, I propose that gravity propagates at the speed of C^2. This has tremendous implications on consciousness and intuition that will become more apparent later.

Now let us begin to put the pieces together, using my assumptions and principles, rather than those now accepted within science. The first implication of my model is that since all things we know are made of mass and the connections of gravity between them, then gravity must define all space that we know of. When a particle first comes into existence in a new universe, it comes into existence as mass. But my equation clearly shows that it must bring some gravity with it and in fact, the gravity must define the space that the particle is to exist in. In this initial state, this particle is pretty much like its own universe, since it has no connections to any other thing. Think of the mass as an orange and think of its gravity as the orange peal. For the particle to have existence, it must have the three components of mass, gravity and energy.

But for this particle to be useful, it must start combining with other particles to make more complex physical systems. To me, making this first connection is the most difficult part of my model, because once the first connections are made, it is easy to see where things go from there. But understanding this first connection of gravity can in some way help us to understand the more complicated connections that will come later (the human female brain has been recognized as the most complex set of connections that exist, at least by me). There is a basic philosophical principle involved when these first two particles come together. First they must form a bond between them that holds them together, yet they can not get too close or they would occupy the same "space."

Therefore, when the first two particles connect, they illustrate the two major groups of gravions. One of the main jobs of gravity is to decide what things are "self" and what things are "not-self." Therefore the gravion which forms between the particles and connects them together and holds them together would be called a self-gravion, since it now helps the two particles work as a single unit. An electron might be an example of such a particle. But as the two particles come together, if there is any extra energy, it must be used to "push" gravity outward since it can't push the mass inward, so now the two particles are working together to define a larger space than they defined as single, unconnected particles. The net effect is that the two particles have now defined another gravion that "loops" out from the particle pair and helps declare the particles "new" size to the cosmos. This new gravion is called an advertising gravion, because it "advertises" the particle strength to any other particle that might make gravionic contact.

So now let us try to get an overview. As particles come into existence, they are composed of energy, most of which is used to make mass and a small portion of it is used to make gravity. So the first particles have no connections and most of the energy is stored in their mass. But what happens to those particles, as they grow older? They begin making connections and eventually make more and more connections. So philosophically over time, they start as simple unorganized things and over time become much more organized. Therefore I have proposed that the basic "fuel" of the cosmos is gravity slowly removing the energy from mass by making more and more connections of gravity. If we follow this scenario to the end, we see that the process ends in a black hole where we have almost all gravity and very little mass. A big bang occurs when mass loses so much of its energy that m goes to zero in E=gmc^2 and the energy of the black hole is released as another big bang. Thus my model shows that the cosmos is infinite and that all things in nature cycle, including universes.

Realize that as each particle goes through its life, the energy of the system is always tugging back and forth between mass and gravity, with the net effect, over time, is that the particle loose its energy to gravity. Current science has proposed a model with 6 different kinds of mass and I have always wondered where the number six came from. My model shows that there is one mass, one energy, and one gravity. Well almost. Actually, there is probably C^2 different versions of mass, gravity and energy, because each ratio does create a different kind of space (gravions) and different kinds of mass and different kinds of energy. So all is one, yet all is continually different. The important thing to understand is that these different combinations of components produce ever more complex combinations of space and one of those combinations is us.

Life is defined as those physical systems that use gravity to store information about the universe around them. Living systems have more energy stored within them, than do "dead" physical systems. Living things use the connections of gravity to sense information about their environment and to store information that might help the system survive. Gravions represent the dynamic RAM of life. When a living system dies, its gravity falls to unity, for its environment. Thus, the energy of any living thing, is not totally contained within its mass, since much of its energy resides in the connections of gravity that make up the system and extend out beyond the system. Are you beginning to see how we can influence physical systems that not directly connected to us by the mass portion of the universe? The gravity portion of all objects extends out beyond its physical size and the same is true for human beings, except we have very complicated gravitational fields reaching out from us.

So how does all of this relate to human consciousness? My model shows that the human mind is a gravionic processor. Since this is the short course, I won't go through all the steps of biological computers that have led to the human mind, so lets skip all the other layers of processing that must be going on in nature underneath the human mind. These would range from complex molecules to bacteria to cells to animals to mammals and everything else all the way up to the human mind and our consciousness. I believe that all life makes models from the connections of gravity, and these models are what propel and guide each creature in its life. Of course, the more complicated the being, the more complicated the models become. So each human being observes the world around him and makes models to represent what he thinks he is seeing. We try those models, and if they work we keep them. When they start failing, we try to improve the model so that we can make a better model of the "real" nature of nature. Insanity is merely the inability to make a model that works.

Does a thought have weight? I have wondered about this question for a long time. If you examine my rules closely, you will see that I don't allow gravity to exist without mass or mass to exist without gravity. But I think the human mind has slightly "broken" the rules, because I think a thought is just a purely gravionic construction. This is allowed under my model, since the mass of the body of the person is what really supports these gravionic constructions, but if one looked only at a thought, one would see only gravity. How does this work? Of course there is countless work to be done on this subject, but it looks to me like the brain has learned to "bite" off a chunk of gravity, run it through the various processors, call it a thought, and then stick this new thought onto the gravitational model that makes up our mind. Therefore, the answer is that thoughts don't have mass, so I guess they don't weigh much.

So how do we arrive at consciousness? It seems to me that for any physical system to become aware of itself, it must, in some way, be removed from itself. So a system becomes aware when it builds a model of the reality around it that is complicated enough to represent himself as a part of that cosmos. But more than that, to become fully aware, we must be able to look back upon ourselves from a perspective outside ourselves, in some fashion. What I now think happens, is that this complex gravionic model that represents our very self, is physically "raised" by the addition of energy when we wake up or become aware. Then we focus a bit of pure energy, called our spirit, within the gravitational space we call our mind. At night, our subconscious roams this space where it continually looks at the new pieces of gravity that have been added that day, to see how those pieces fit into the overall model we call ourselves. When we are asleep, the conscious model drops into a "preservation" state, where only enough energy is supplied to form the model and keep it intact. As we wake, this model is raised so that our consciousness can have that perspective of looking back at the world.

Our very minds and thoughts are these structures of gravity. But everyone knows that gravity events extend out beyond the physical boundaries. So now we begin to see how intuition and other events that seem outside of "science" can actually be real events. For something to be real, it must have a connection of gravity and an exchange of energy. Nature always takes place in a two-part sequence. First the connections of gravity are made and then the energy flows. Most of science today, only studies problems after the connections of gravity occur. But the connections of gravity are the place where intuition, God, angels, and many other events that we have trouble explaining can reside. If there is a God at work, where would he work? He would work within these connections of gravity. If one has intuition, whether from the outside or inside, wouldn't the connections of gravity be the method of their operation? Realize that once the connections have been made, the event is destined to follow the physical laws. Have you ever felt like something had happened, before you knew for sure that it had happened? The connections of gravity may explain that problem

So what does all of this mean? It means we are very complex physical systems. Our minds and our bodies are very complicated constructions of gravity, mass and energy. I believe that most of the energy of our being is actually stored in the gravitational or spirit portion of our being. But all things are in balance. Many preach that the spirit is all and many preach through their actions that the physical is all, but my model shows that all things are in balance such as mass and gravity, spiritual and physical. Gravity and spirit rule on one side and physical and mass rule on the other side, but to consider any object in it entirety, once must consider both and realize the balance that exists.

So what is intuition? To be real, it must involve making connections of gravity. Life is a very complex physical system with many events happening all the time. But any intuition that is real just means that you have made new connections of gravity, in some form or manner. They may be in your own mind, with other people, or with other beings (such as God, or aliens, or other spirits) if they exist. There are several explanations, and I'll just give a few for now. One is that, since reality, as we know it, is made from this giant collection of connections. These connections in some way reveal the history of what has come before us (possible explanation for remote viewing). As I have developed the gravionic model, I have walked hundreds of miles in the wilderness. I have looked at every physical system that I could find, dead or alive. But I have kept several thoughts in mind as I worked. First is that surely someone somewhere in time has learned what I sought, so the information should be there if I could but become one with what already exists. Second, I have always believed in God and that God answers prayers, so I have asked Him to reveal to me the answers that I seek. So God may be a way that intuition works. And third, I believe in my own abilities. I have always believed that I could understand a unified view of the cosmos, if someone would just explain it to me, I just never thought I would have to figure it out by myself.

The most important point to make though, is the one of our expectations. If I didn't have the assumption of an infinite cosmos from the beginning, that alone would have hampered my efforts. One can call it positive thinking or divine inspiration, but everything in life revolves around your assumptions and your expectations. Prayer is merely the assumption that we can make connections directly with God and that energy can flow through those connections. Real prayer would involve actually making a connection with God or another human being and exchanging energy. I see this happening all the time, so my assumption is that it is real. So assume the best and believe that you can do anything you decide to do.

Each of us, as we move through this world, affect those around us. We are constantly making and breaking gravion connections with other people. Most human beings are not aware of all these connections. Many of these encounters cause the exchange of energy, some good and some bad. Most of this has been relegated to parapsychology or other "untoward" factions. But most of the people I know who are the least bit aware have had many experiences that seemed to be outside the realm of science. But I say that if a connection of gravity was made and energy was exchanged, then that event was real. It may not be reproducible, because we are very complex gravionic structures, we can't yet control these events, and so making them happen again may be very difficult. My model clearly shows that every event that ever happens is a unique event in the total history of the cosmos. The connections of gravity that make up you and your world can not exist anywhere else, because they are not only the connections that make up you, but they are every connection from your past that has led to what you are today.

Since I am giving you the short course on gravity, I might as well give away the ending. You see, it comes down to this. We, as human beings must take our rightful place as citizens of the cosmos. This means we must learn to understand gravity and abide by its rules. In some way, we can judge all good and bad and all right and wrong by looking at the connections of gravity. Good and right increases the connections of gravity and energy flow. Bad things decrease the amount of organization and take energy. The rules of gravity are thus: (1) When you can, make connections of gravity and give energy to those around you. Help supply the communal load of producing energy. (2) Never take energy from another, unless you need the energy and he is making connections and giving that energy willingly and knowingly. (3) Spend time, by whatever method that works for you, in increasing your own energy, so that you can leave this world with positive energy flow and an increase in the order of our universe. Bring order to all the situations where you can. Don't make disorder if you can help it.

I know that this is a lot to express in a few short pages, but I wanted to try. When I explain my gravionic model to most people, they have no trouble identifying with it, since most people have experienced something unexplained in their lives. When I try to explain it to scientist, well, they just don't want any new science. I have experienced many situations in the past that I could not explain and I didn't think that science was explaining them either. But for the last two and one half years, I have been able to view the cosmos from a single model that does explain many of the things I have seen and gives insight into those things I do not yet fully understand. There is so much to say and sometimes I don't know where to stop, but I've typed all morning and now I want to go get some fresh air and be in the nature that I love so much. So I guess the question is this. Are there any questions?

Your friend,