raised by some researchers against my book How Consciousness Creates Reality. The Full Version or its German original, and my responses to them:
1. "It is not written in a modern 'scientific' format."
Correct. It is written in a free style, as in the time when great discoveries were made in philosophy.
2. "No references are given."
Partially correct. All quotations are referenced. The book was originally intended for a general readership. Part I covers mostly well-known ground, so there are almost no references to the many sources I had studied before starting "from scratch". The content of Parts II–IV was developed from scratch, though inspired by the sources identified in the book. I do not cite what I have not used for good reasons, and I would not cite "sources" just to cover everything that has been written in that context. The main ideas are described for the first time as far as I know.
3. "You did not build on the tradition of philosophy."
Almost right. Originally, I did not work for a readership, but to satisfy my own curiosity. I read what interested me, but over time I discovered that I could solve my philosophical problems much more quickly and consistently on my own than by looking for partial answers in the work of others or by correcting existing concepts. I simply asked from a different point of view. So few sources remained. It may be, however, that I have sometimes reinvented older results from a different angle. This is not a paradox, but the creative way.
4. "There is no discussion of other viewpoints."
Almost right. I have considered as many counter-arguments as possible before formulating an idea or argument. Much more is not offered because I did not have the time for this mammoth task, which I believe would not have contributed equally to the core of the book. So, unfortunately, the work of comparing arguments in detail is left to the interested reader.
5. "This is old stuff." "Your theory is not connectable."
Sounds like a contradiction? It is. If one says this and one says that, the truth is probably somewhere in between, say a different view with new key components.
6. "He is not an academic."
True. Now I am proud of it. I have never had to submit to the spirit of the times, and I have never been beholden to the wishes of funders in the field I love.
7. "I don't like this esoteric approach."
No problem. Just keep moving.