Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote: > I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that > Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his > conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or > manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, > then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of > private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public > bodies. > > Craig > > PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where > Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but > figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. > > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: >> >> Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. >> Richard >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough <rcl...@verizon.net> wrote: >> > Hi Richard Ruquist >> > >> > Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. >> > The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible >> > between ideas and things. >> > >> > >> > Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net >> > 10/11/2012 >> > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen >> > >> > >> > ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> > From: Richard Ruquist >> > Receiver: everything-list >> > Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 >> > Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls >> > >> > >> > Craig, >> > The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. >> > I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. >> > But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. >> > The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. >> > Names are not important. >> > Richard >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Craig, >> >>> >> >>> 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 >> >> doesn't...bleed? >> >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) >> >> >> >>> >> >>> 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 >> >>> 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 >> >>> location" >> >>> ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> experiencer? >> >> >> >> Craig >> >> >> >>> >> >>> Richard >> >>> >> >> -- >> >> 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/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. >> >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> >> everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> >> 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> > 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 post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> > everything-li...@googlegroups.com. >> > 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/-/vKAYTmOVQygJ. > 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.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. 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.
