On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
>
> I disagree with everything you suggest. 
>

You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume 
that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is 
that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it 
really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be 
incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology 
standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we 
are and what awareness is. My model does that.

Craig
 

>
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: 
> >> 
> >> Craig, 
> >> Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. 
> >> 
> >> You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes 
> >> everything. 
> >> 
> >> String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess 
> >> dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck 
> >> diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're 
> >> curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still 
> >> expanding, monads are apparently still being made. 
> >> 
> >> The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. 
> >> They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is 
> >> why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, 
> >> they (the monads) exist. 
> >> 
> >> You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that 
> >> extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be 
> >> correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. 
> >> All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that 
> >> probably can never be proven. 
> >> Richard 
> > 
> > 
> > All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads 
> only 
> > really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative 
> strings 
> > rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be 
> qualitative 
> > experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than 
> literally 
> > 'different kinds of space'. 
> > 
> > In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You 
> can 
> > look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the 
> > loooong way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by 
> analyzing 
> > a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that 
> song. 
> > 
> > I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have 
> > qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. 
> We 
> > are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, 
> > diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and 
> literally 
> > at the same time. 
> > 
> > Craig 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups 
> > "Everything List" group. 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. 
> > To post to this group, send email to 
> > everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>. 
>
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> > everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. 
> > For more options, visit this group at 
> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q8vH2J5UkF0J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to