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 > <[email protected]<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 > > [email protected]<javascript:>. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected] <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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
