On Sep 4, 6:45 am, Richard Ruquist <yann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> insert below
> On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> > 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.

Here's the most recent revision of my hypothesis:

> 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.

What does the shape of a manifold or the mathematics of natural
numbers really tell us about a universal property of consciousness
though? It seems to me that CY and Peano arithmetic already are orders
so they wouldn't explain the origin of order (their own or otherwise).

I'm not saying that CY and String Theory aren't onto something, but I
don't see how it can describe the content of awareness (just it's
architecture flattened out as an a-signifying quantitative object in
space. It may very well be that the elements of feelings can be mapped
in terms of compactified dimensions, but of course, the map is not the

> 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.

Where does it emerge to? Is it metaphysical? Why does it emerge at
all? Couldn't it just remain an aspect of arithmetic?

> 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.

What do you consider 'information'?

> 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
> canonizer.

What theory contains the existence of arithmetic though?

> 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."

While a lot of our higher cortical processes, cognition, etc, are
certainly computation heavy and employ a great deal of representation,
I think that representation can only occur in a context of original
presentations. What I mean is that feelings (human sensations,
awareness, understanding, etc) are not themselves representations of
arithmetic processes, but rather an extension of those processes into
forms of pattern recognition and sense which cannot be meaningfully be
described as arithmetic.

While there is undoubtedly value in the CTM approach, I do think that
it's only a matter of time before it is scrapped as just another
metaphor-of-contemporary-technological-wonder as consciousness theory.
The brain is more of a computer than it is a pump or an engine, but
really not much more. I think it's a lot more like a coral reef than a

> 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.,


Numbers are a particular form of sense, just as the spectrum is an
ordering of visual feeling, and the musical scale is an ordering of
aural tones, natural numbers are an ordering principle of cognitive
sensorimotive experience. This is where I differ from Bruno, in that I
am not convinced that natural numbers, though compelling to our
conscious human minds, are not primitive agents in the cosmos.
Arithmetic themes may well be as universal as we can get using purely
the most narrowly and powerfully literal band of our cognitive
faculties, but the cosmos of sense goes far beyond mere quantitative

 I understand that you are making distinct human representation of
numbers distinct from natural numbers but I am not compelled to
characterize universal sense primitives as purely quantitative (or
quantitative purity). If that were the case, it seems like all of the
richness and differentiations of our senses would be redundant. Surely
our brains would run on a single universal machine language, and not
all of these different inexplicable mediums.

> 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).

I just have an unshakable hunch that complexity alone does not yield
consciousness. I think it just masks the simplicity of it with a kind
of superstitious reverence for the difficulty our own minds have with
complex computation. I think that pain is very simple, and that it's
not a number. I appreciate that at least this theory allows for
downward causation. That's hopeful at least.

> 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.

In my hypothesis, intention is the interiority of electromagnetism. It
works like induction, with sensorimotive push-pull within the psyche
corresponding to electromagnetic fluctuations within the biochemistry
of the brain. Like a dynamo. Awareness is just the sensorimotive
interior of electromagnetism. SM is private experience over time, EM
is public behavior through space.


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

Reply via email to