The part where I pointed out its similarity to countless prior "explanations" of thought which invoked some "underlying essence" at work (e.g. chi, quantum fields, etc.) without actually explaining anything, and thus were unsuccessful at "changing the face of science forever", and thus the odds for this one doing so aren't too hot either.
I do believe I was quite clear.
And while you're at it, justify why YOU brought up religion, so the lurkers aren't duped into thinking it was my idea.
Why must I "justify" something I didn't do?
"While *you're* at it", please explain to the lurkers why *you* had the idea of mislabeling my point as somehow bringing up religion, when it did not.
My point quite clearly involved only comparing the current "resonance theory" to prior "crystal theory", "chi theory", "Akashic record theory", "aura theory", etc. All of these were (poor) attempts to "explain" the mysteries of thought/mind/soul/whatever by passing the buck to some even more mysterious "essence" in which thought "resided" or "sourced" from. Some of them may have been more "mystic" than others, but that doesn't make the my point about the inadequacy of their explanatory power somehow a "religious" point, nor are most of them "religious" in the normal sense of the word (personally, I would maintain that none of them are). I quite clearly (to all but you, apparently) restricted my comment to their inability to "change the face of science forever" as scientific "explanations".
When you're done, you can get back to discussing Betty Boop's actual topic.
I'm way ahead of you.