On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
> 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.
I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think
that what you are describing would be technically categorized as
interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to
be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that
> Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory
> 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
> one." (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf)
> 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
> ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up:
I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries
to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually
suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The
hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'?
> 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.
This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and
neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in
what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human
consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum
framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this
capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble
perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an
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