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.
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > 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
> > really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative
> > rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be
> > experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than
> > 'different kinds of space'.
> > In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You
> > 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
> > a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that
> > I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have
> > qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension.
> > are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within,
> > diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and
> > at the same time.
> > Craig
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > "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
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > 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
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