I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the
substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if
consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then
the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other.
So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism.
Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads..
For example take the binding problem where:
"There are an almost infinite number of possible, different
objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single
neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each
However, at a density of 10^90/cc
(from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space),
the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for
"all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location"
ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up:
So the monads and the neurons experience the same things
because of the BEC entanglement connection.
These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory
that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness
and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads
perhaps to solve the binding problem
and at least for computational support of physical consciousness.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>> To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error.
>> More specifically,
>> I conjecture that the connection in the brain between the physical brain
>> and the (computational?) mind/monads is based on BEC entanglement.
>> BEC stands for Bose-Einstein Condensate.
>> It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs made of different
>> can become entangled. I claim based on string theory that the monads
>> are a BEC since they came from space. They are compactified space,
>> crystalline in form and essentially motionless. Presumably there is
>> also a physical BEC in the brain.
>> So if my conjecture is correct, that disparate BECs, even the monad
>> BEC is substantive,
>> are capable of entanglement, which of course is all logical, then the
>> connection is based on entanglement. To say that a connection is based
>> on logic is a category error.
> What advantage does a BEC explanation really have over substance dualism
> though? How dies it solve the hard problem? Why do BECs experience things
> and nothing else does?
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
> 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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at