insert below

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Craig Weinberg <>wrote:

> On Sep 3, 6:17 pm, meekerdb <> wrote:
> > I generally agree that there may be new evidence to be discovered and
> theories to be
> > invented, and it's possible they may have some bearing on consciousness.
>  And I agree that
> > particle physics doesn't directly account for human experience - although
> it accounts for
> > chemistry, which accounts for biology, which accounts for evolution,
> which accounts for
> > some aspects of human and animal experience.
> I wouldn't say that chemistry accounts for biology, anymore than
> bricks account for the New York City skyline. Nor does evolution
> account for perception. We can only reverse engineer a pseudo-
> understanding of life and awareness because we have their existence as
> an example. Without that example, chemistry alone would never predict
> biological organisms even as a remote possibility, and evolution could
> never dream of perception as a plausible mutation.
> >And the Standard Model of particle physics
> > is a good theory that has made some highly accurate predictions and
> passed many empirical
> > tests.
> Definitely. Although Deferent and epicycle were considered solid and
> accurate for 1,000 years. What is the Standard Model? 40 years old or
> something? How's that Higgs Boson goose chase going?
> >Your theory of sensorimotive experience as an involuted continuum of
> insistence
> > and existence in an inertial frame of perceputal relativity on the other
> hand doesn't
> > predict anything testable
> It might predict something testable, that's just not really my area of
> expertise. Given those basic principles of entropy, matter, space
> being inversely related to negentropy, energy, and time, I think there
> might be some experiments that could be conducted. I think two slit
> experiments could be reworked a bit, to use the retina as a
> photomultiplier and see what it looks like from inside of us. I would
> expect to see the cells in the retina or the eyeball itself to jiggle
> back and forth trying to triangulate the light source behind the
> center of the two slits (rather than passively being struck by dumb
> photons that happen to be going through one slit or another). I don't
> know enough about it to really make a high quality prediction, but I
> think that if someone who was very familiar with those experiments
> really understood my ideas about it, they could find something new and
> interesting there.
> > and seems to consist of abuse of terminology invented ad hoc for
> > the purpose.
> Can someone really abuse terminology that they invent?
> >You attack materialism like the Creationist attack evolution.  You just
> > point to stuff and say, "See you can't explain that!....Oh you did.  Well
> then you can't
> > explain that!" as though a gap in the materialist world model proves that
> materialism
> > can't be right.  The Catholic Church has been playing that game for
> centuries but their
> > playing field gets smaller every year.
> I think it's materialist arguments that attack my hypothesis like
> Creationists attacking evolution. It's all dogma thumping circular
> reasoning which demands that I explain the fault in the faulty model
> without going outside of the faulty model. The only difference is that
> instead of God there is randomness, determinism, or evolution, and
> instead of the Bible, there is the Laws of Physics. If physics had
> good explanations - even plausible explanations for awareness, life,
> qualia, order, or the cosmos itself then I would be a huge champion of
> it.
RR: Here I believe is a "plausible explanation for awareness, life,
qualia, order, or the cosmos itself" : I missed the post of what your
hypothesis is.

The Calabi-Yau-Ruquist (CYR) hypothesis of phenomenal consciousness is a
version of material dualism based on the Calabi-Yau Compact Manifold of
compactified dimensions in string theory. In essence it corresponds to the
Smythies-Carr (CS) hypothesis but with the CS source for consciousness,
i.e., a brane parallel to the brane of the physical world, replaced by an
invisible subspace of nature with remarkable properties.

This universal subspace contains a 3D array of string-theory Calabi-Yau (CY)
elements, numbering 10^90 per cc, due to the compactification of 6
dimensions as 3 dimensions expanded in the Big Bang. In this representation,
consciousness is based on the hypothesis that a natural system which mimics
the mathematics of natural numbers (like Peano arithmetic) will have a
universal property (like energy in a thermodynamic system) called
consciousness. Given that there are 10^500 distinct CY elements according to
string theory, that is more than enough for every CY element in the universe
to be distinct. And given astronomical observations that the fine-structure
constant varies monotonically across the universe, the CY elements are
likely ordered. So in this system concept consciousness is emergent from an
arithmetical subspace.

Another remarkable property of this subspace is that because the CY elements
are motionless, they form a frictionless Bose-Einstein Condensate(BEC),
where information can be transmitted instantly. In string theory elements of
this subspace also contain the laws of physics and they collectively control
particle interactions. This is therefore also a candidate for the God

>From the Stanford Philosophy site: "The leading contemporary version of the
Representational Theory of Mind, the Computational Theory of Mind (CTM),
claims that the brain is a kind of computer and that mental processes are
computations. According to CTM, cognitive states are constituted by
computational relations to mental representations of various kinds, and
cognitive processes are sequences of such states."

Our hypothesis is closer to a branch of computationalism that (following
Godel) claims that consciousness emerging from Peano Arithmetic in turn can
create energy and matter like in the Big Bang, i.e.,


But that is not a necessary evolutionary path for a representational string
theory of consciousness where downward causation continually interacts with
upward consciousness to create an inner self within the mental
representation of outside and internal worlds of independent matter and
energy, i.e.,


Downward causation is key to the whole process providing for
self-referential feedback loops and of course for thinking based on
intention. Ruquist proposes that BEC entanglement between different levels
of consciousness allows for feedback looping. Here, like in Godel’s
derivation of the Incompleteness Theorems, the math includes complexity
levels or stages of proof from the most fundamental level of the natural
numbers through a hierarchy of ever more general states (46 for the
Incompleteness theorems).

Downward causation then refers to higher states being able to manipulate the
configuration of entangled lower states. Likewise, physical waking
consciousness may be entangled with the mind representation allowing
intention to operate across their boundaries. We do not postulate a
mechanism for intention.


> I completely support physics for it's common sense applications -
> thermodynamics, optics, classical mechanics, etc. Chemistry gives me
> absolutely no cause for doubt in it's calculation of chemical
> reactions and usefulness in refining, engineering, etc. If anything,
> my view points toward a universe that is more physical - free from
> hypothetical voyeurs and their 'interpretations' made of
> 'information'. These are loose ends to me, and we've gotten now to a
> point where our worldview is too sophisticated to tolerate gigantic
> metaphysical question marks. I'm trying to rescue science from being
> sodomized by religious fundamentalism - a fundamentalism fed by the
> disowned humanity or quantitative fetish worldviews.
> Craig
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> For more options, visit this group at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to