Simon
I refute it because it's logical implications are self-contradictory.
You misunderstand the logic, contradiction means a statement and a the negation of it. I see no sign of such in my statement.
I ask you this: How can any given "super-consiousness" theory be demonstrated to work?
by discovering that reality is essentially an illusion and that information is just that, information. This can be done easily: deny reality.
I don't think it's a matter of what I believe. Such a theory is not logically verifiable.
It's not a theory, its a proved theorem.