But the fact that I haven't had any serious logical challenges works in my favor.
Or alternatively, your ego causes the cognitive dissonance that forces you to dismiss counterarguments out of hand as they threaten the emotional satisfaction you receive from considering yourself to have solved several of humanities great problems in one fell swoop. Just like how a fundamentalist can't see the obvious flaws in their logic even though other people can.
As a person of 'above average' intelligence, you have to accept this is at least a possibility, yes? You agree no human is immune to this cognitive phenomenon?
You also have to accept that,
in general, any person who has come up with a grand theory regarding issues of great complexity and sees absolutely no logical arguments against their position is far more likely suffering from epistemic arrogance than to be correct. Maybe you are the outlier, but all the others thought they were the outlier too. Agreed?
You will also probably agree that,
in general, someone who recognises the logical challenges to their position is far more likely to be correct than someone who thinks there are none, and is certainly more likely to be self-critical and intellectually honest. Agreed?
You have dismissed the following 'logical challenges' out of hand. It is possible to believe your arguments are stronger, but to see these as not even anything worth considering is very telling to me.
You treat the brain as a non-complex system that can be understood reductively like a man-made machine
(this contradicts modern scientific understanding of the brain)
You claim you can make predictions with certainty about the long term future based on incomplete information
(this is generally considered to be impossible)
You have never provided any scientific evidence that your 'universal conscience' exists, just cherry-picked quotes from scientists who
explicitly disagree with your overall conclusions
(hence you are making a lot of subjective assumptions and inferences which greatly increases the chance of you being wrong)
You functionally deny neurodiversity exists
(if it does, you cannot assume a universal conscience)
If any one of the following is true: the brain is a complex system, you have incomplete information about the brain and human society, neurodiversity exists, it is
impossible that your degree of certainty is warranted. If all 3 are true, the degree of contingency increases exponentially and you confidence level decreases in line with this.
No need to address them as I know you won't/can't. They are just for the "unbiased observers" that
definitely exist and
definitely waste their time reading our silly arguments