We agree that testability is a problem in string theories due to their many solutions. However, even if they can be boiled down to one solution such as in M or superstring theory with 11 dimensions—they still can make very little progress in explaining subjective consciousness or qualia... Which, as already noted, appears to be a property of the fundamental level of the Universe... Or, as proposed in the ABC model; "A fundamental quality of the pre-cosmic unconditioned absolute (zero degrees K) space located everywhere at the ZPE origin of all spacetime particle-wave fields and their composite atomic, molecular and material forms". This is based on already proven scientific theories that all matter is fundamentally electrical and of a standing wave nature. (Ref.: Einstein, Maxwell, Schrodinger, Pauli, de Broglie, Wolff, etc.)... And, such a space would necessarily act as a Bose Einstein Condensate (BEC)—which would account for the non-locality of consciousness, as well as its entanglement throughout the body... So that a pinprick felt in a finger is also perceived globally by our center of individual self-consciousness... Which—according to the overall fractal field surrounding the entire body at the highest possible frequency phase order in hyperspace (the eternal human soul)—is located in the naval chakra. See: http://leonmaurer.info/ABCimages/Chakrafielddiag-fig.col.jpg While the ABC model also cannot be generally or particularly falsified using conventional scientific methods—many of its precepts such as the wave nature of matter, the hologram nature of all constructive and reflective information, can be inferred or demonstrated both observationally and mind experimentally. For example it's obvious that all reflected visual information observed from any viewpoint in spacetime, converges as a wave interference pattern at each such zero-point. This implies that the information describing the structural forms of the entire cosmos is actually a hologram. As the universe and all its parts, no matter how complex, can be viewed in perfect 3-dimensions and color quality in the mind—this is direct evidence that the mind is a radiant field which carries the total information as interference patterns in every zero-point on its spherical surface, and that zero-point consciousness, in conjunction with its surrounding spin momentum-sourced coherent radiation, is a hologram image detector, holographic re-constructer, and perceiver. (Actually, as all we really see reconstructed holographically is the 2-D image on the retina, after being transformed back to a 2-D hologram in the mind field—it requires both eyes viewing the outer world hologram from different angles—to enable us to experience, and be able to judge actual 3-D depth.) All this, incidentally, is perfectly consistent with already proven holographic principles a well as all the fundamental laws of electrodynamics. Since we see such images as if viewed from a single point in the center of our head—it's self evident that the image in the mind—after converging to each point on the eye lens, focused onto the 2-D retina, and processed by the neural network of the brain—must be a hologram. Thus, the brain's EM field would have to carry the image as wave interference patterns on its 2D spherical surface... And the mind field would necessarily be a resonant, higher order radiant harmonic field in hyperspace—whose virtual particle frequency/mass-energy is closest to the infinite cyclic spin momentum of the conscious zero-point. Accordingly, it becomes obvious that consciousness or unconditioned subjectivity remains outside of all metric space and time, and apart from all physical/material or energetic processes. In light of all the above—there doesn't seem to be any credibility in considering observer or perceiver/responder consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) as quantum effects or epiphenomena of neurological, physiological or biological processes. Apparently, other than its neural correlates, and possibly psychological processes, consciousness, in all its subjective aspects, cannot be explained by the present scientific method. Leon

The number of solutions in string theory just makes things worse; the core problem is the lack of testability, even if there was only one solution, and this might apply to ABC as well. I'd suggest that the problem with consciousness and modern science is not the science itself but the establishment individuals that apply it. Almost all of these have a remit to preserve the Newtonian world view, to deny agency or any other importance to consciousness, and to exclude consciousness from any position in the physical universe. None of their arguments seem remotely convincing, but established prestige and modern scientific career structures and research funding ensure that they dominate the debate, if you can call it a debate. However, this does not mean that some established science that has the undoubted advantage of having resisted falsification might not provide some help. In neuroscience the Crick-Koch approach has unacceptably blurred the distinction between a correlate, which merely has a relationship to something else, and a proper explanation of something. Nevertheless, the best established correlate, the gamma synchrony might give us a clue about where to look. Recent studies on this synchrony come close to solving the binding problem, and while this does not explain consciousness, it is true that consciousness is usually identified as a unity, and this might give us ideas on what to look for. Recently I have become unhappy with the term 'quantum consciousness'. This is partly because the loose usage of the term 'quantum', itself a dire consequence of quantum science having been minimised in the mainstream education system. The other is that it is no easier to explain consciousness in terms of individual quanta or their interaction than it is in terms of classical features such as synapses. I would rather think in terms of consciousness and fundamental physics, with processing in the brain gating access to the fundamental level of the universe, which is the only place where it seems possible to place the qualia. Simon

(Simon) I think a lot of people would agree that string theory and various other speculations in cosmology are not scientific theories because they cannot be falsified by any reasonably foreseeable experimental technology. String theory has a particular problem because its 10^500 possible solutions makes it hard to envisage an experimental outcome that could falsify it. The fact that it is consistent with relativity and quantum theory, and in fact has the attractive feature of reconciling them, does not make it a scientific theory. To the extent that string theory is allowed to promote itself as scientific, this is more a political result of it being favoured by prestigious institutions and individuals. (Leon) Just because a theory or hypothesis does not conform to the scientific method (i.e., subject to falsification by direct physical/material observation or experimentation) does not make it "unscientific". The question here is whether the universe is solely composed of physically ponderable matter, or has both a physical/material and meta- or supra-physical component, along with a ubiquitous non-physical subjective consciousness. (Simon) I won't claim to have grasped everything proposed in the ABC model, but it does look at first sight to fall into the same category as string theory. (Leon) ABC theory can't fall in the same catagory as string theory (which has many different solutions)—since ABC has only one possible solution, and is based on an entirely different hypothetical paradigm... Namely (in a nutshell); The cosmos and everything in it is composed, fundamentally, of an endless series of zero-point 'spinergy' (angular momentum) originated, resonantly harmonic, fractal involved standing waves—ranging in frequency/energy between zero and infinite, and capable of carrying infinite information as interference patterned holograms on their wave front surfaces or "event horizons". (Simon) My only other comment is to wonder whether we need anything quite as complex as ABC. Simplicity is regarded as a virtue in scientific theory. A proposition that the structure of spacetime can code for qualia might be sufficient, and might also hint at something about the origin of the universe. (Leon) The ABC theory considers "everything" that is necessary to come up with a comprehensive TOE—to include both consciousness and matter—as two complementary aspects of fundamental unconditioned absolute (0 degrees K) space (acting as a BEC located everywhere in metric spacetime)—one subjective (the unconditioned conscious ZP itself), and the other, objective (potential energy or ZPE as fundamental abstract or nonlinear spin or angular momentum). Obviously consciousness must be absolutely stationary relative to the hologram information, in order to discriminate between the finest modulations of wave patterned information on both wakeful (physical) and dream (UHF metaphysical) space-time levels. And, ABC also considers—based on mathematically sound, multidimensional, non euclidian fractal geometry—that our physical universe is a fourth order fractal harmonic (involution) of the initial cosmic field... Which lower (frequency/energy) order physical spacetime field continues to fractal involve analogously (i.e., As above, so below) all the way down to the finest "virtual" particle-waves in the Planck false vacuum. Incidentally, this standing wave nature of all reality has been satisfactory proven by Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFreniere, among others—all of which is consistent with General Relativity, and the wave theories of de Broglie, Schrödinger, Pauli, etc. http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ http://www.quantummatter.com/space-resonance/beyond-point-particle/ So ABC rests on at least one firm scientific basis that contradicts the standard model of physics and its basic assumptions (i.e. particle wave duality, wave function collapse, matter only, etc.) It's obvious that if the propositions of ABC—considering that unconditioned consciousness and potential mass energy or matter are fundamental dual characteristics or qualities of absolute unconditioned space itself, and that all information of consciousness is carried and transmitted by radiant fields as holograms detectable and simply reconstructed and holographically experienced by perceptive ZP consciousness—as thoroughly explained by simple coherent energy projection/reflection (see my web site***)... Then, this model is far more parsimonious than any material based theory could ever be—that tries to introduce the complexity of objective quantum effects and neural correlates, as precursors of both consciousness and its experience of qualia. So, I still claim that subjective consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) can never be explained using the objective scientific method under its present reductive materialist paradigm. *** http://knol.google.com/k/how-it-all-began#

(Simon) I think a lot of people would agree that string theory and various other speculations in cosmology are not scientific theories because they cannot be falsified by any reasonably foreseeable experimental technology. String theory has a particular problem because its 10^500 possible solutions makes it hard to envisage an experimental outcome that could falsify it. The fact that it is consistent with relativity and quantum theory, and in fact has the attractive feature of reconciling them, does not make it a scientific theory. To the extent that string theory is allowed to promote itself as scientific, this is more a political result of it being favoured by prestigious institutions and individuals. (Leon) Just because a theory or hypothesis does not conform to the scientific method (i.e., subject to falsification by direct physical/material observation or experimentation) does not make it "unscientific". The question here is whether the universe is solely composed of physically ponderable matter, or has both a physical/material and meta- or supra-physical component, along with a ubiquitous non-physical subjective consciousness. (Simon) I won't claim to have grasped everything proposed in the ABC model, but it does look at first sight to fall into the same category as string theory. (Leon) ABC theory can't fall in the same catagory as string theory (which has many different solutions)—since ABC has only one possible solution, and is based on an entirely different hypothetical paradigm... Namely (in a nutshell); The cosmos and everything in it is composed, fundamentally, of an endless series of zero-point 'spinergy' (angular momentum) originated, resonantly harmonic, fractal involved standing waves—ranging in frequency/energy between zero and infinite, and capable of carrying infinite information as interference patterned holograms on their wave front surfaces or "event horizons". (Simon) My only other comment is to wonder whether we need anything quite as complex as ABC. Simplicity is regarded as a virtue in scientific theory. A proposition that the structure of spacetime can code for qualia might be sufficient, and might also hint at something about the origin of the universe. (Leon) The ABC theory considers "everything" that is necessary to come up with a comprehensive TOE—to include both consciousness and matter—as two complementary aspects of fundamental unconditioned absolute (0 degrees K) space (acting as a BEC located everywhere in metric spacetime)—one subjective (the unconditioned conscious ZP itself), and the other, objective (potential energy or ZPE as fundamental abstract or nonlinear spin or angular momentum). Obviously consciousness must be absolutely stationary relative to the hologram information, in order to discriminate between the finest modulations of wave patterned information on both wakeful (physical) and dream (UHF metaphysical) space-time levels. And, ABC also considers—based on mathematically sound, multidimensional, non euclidian fractal geometry—that our physical universe is a fourth order fractal harmonic (involution) of the initial cosmic field... Which lower (frequency/energy) order physical spacetime field continues to fractal involve analogously (i.e., As above, so below) all the way down to the finest "virtual" particle-waves in the Planck false vacuum. Incidentally, this standing wave nature of all reality has been satisfactory proven by Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFreniere, among others—all of which is consistent with General Relativity, and the wave theories of de Broglie, Schrödinger, Pauli, etc. http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ http://www.quantummatter.com/space-resonance/beyond-point-particle/ So ABC rests on at least one firm scientific basis that contradicts the standard model of physics and its basic assumptions (i.e. particle wave duality, wave function collapse, matter only, etc.) It's obvious that if the propositions of ABC—considering that unconditioned consciousness and potential mass energy or matter are fundamental dual characteristics or qualities of absolute unconditioned space itself, and that all information of consciousness is carried and transmitted by radiant fields as holograms detectable and simply reconstructed and holographically experienced by perceptive ZP consciousness—as thoroughly explained by simple coherent energy projection/reflection (see my web site***)... Then, this model is far more parsimonious than any material based theory could ever be—that tries to introduce the complexity of objective quantum effects and neural correlates, as precursors of both consciousness and its experience of qualia. So, I still claim that subjective consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) can never be explained using the objective scientific method under its present reductive materialist paradigm. *** http://knol.google.com/k/how-it-all-began#

(Simon) I think a lot of people would agree that string theory and various other speculations in cosmology are not scientific theories because they cannot be falsified by any reasonably foreseeable experimental technology. String theory has a particular problem because its 10^500 possible solutions makes it hard to envisage an experimental outcome that could falsify it. The fact that it is consistent with relativity and quantum theory, and in fact has the attractive feature of reconciling them, does not make it a scientific theory. To the extent that string theory is allowed to promote itself as scientific, this is more a political result of it being favoured by prestigious institutions and individuals. (Leon) Just because a theory or hypothesis does not conform to the scientific method (i.e., subject to falsification by direct physical/material observation or experimentation) does not make it "unscientific". The question here is whether the universe is solely composed of physically ponderable matter, or has both a physical/material and meta- or supra-physical component, along with a ubiquitous non-physical subjective consciousness. (Simon) I won't claim to have grasped everything proposed in the ABC model, but it does look at first sight to fall into the same category as string theory. (Leon) ABC theory can't fall in the same catagory as string theory (which has many different solutions)—since ABC has only one possible solution, and is based on an entirely different hypothetical paradigm... Namely (in a nutshell); The cosmos and everything in it is composed, fundamentally, of an endless series of zero-point 'spinergy' (angular momentum) originated, resonantly harmonic, fractal involved standing waves—ranging in frequency/energy between zero and infinite, and capable of carrying infinite information as interference patterned holograms on their wave front surfaces or "event horizons". (Simon) My only other comment is to wonder whether we need anything quite as complex as ABC. Simplicity is regarded as a virtue in scientific theory. A proposition that the structure of spacetime can code for qualia might be sufficient, and might also hint at something about the origin of the universe. (Leon) The ABC theory considers "everything" that is necessary to come up with a comprehensive TOE—to include both consciousness and matter—as two complementary aspects of fundamental unconditioned absolute (0 degrees K) space (acting as a BEC located everywhere in metric spacetime)—one subjective (the unconditioned conscious ZP itself), and the other, objective (potential energy or ZPE as fundamental abstract or nonlinear spin or angular momentum). Obviously consciousness must be absolutely stationary relative to the hologram information, in order to discriminate between the finest modulations of wave patterned information on both wakeful (physical) and dream (UHF metaphysical) space-time levels. And, ABC also considers—based on mathematically sound, multidimensional, non euclidian fractal geometry—that our physical universe is a fourth order fractal harmonic (involution) of the initial cosmic field... Which lower (frequency/energy) order physical spacetime field continues to fractal involve analogously (i.e., As above, so below) all the way down to the finest "virtual" particle-waves in the Planck false vacuum. Incidentally, this standing wave nature of all reality has been satisfactory proven by Milo Wolff and Gabriel LaFreniere, among others—all of which is consistent with General Relativity, and the wave theories of de Broglie, Schrödinger, Pauli, etc. http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm http://www.spaceandmotion.com/ http://www.quantummatter.com/space-resonance/beyond-point-particle/ So ABC rests on at least one firm scientific basis that contradicts the standard model of physics and its basic assumptions (i.e. particle wave duality, wave function collapse, matter only, etc.) It's obvious that if the propositions of ABC—considering that unconditioned consciousness and potential mass energy or matter are fundamental dual characteristics or qualities of absolute unconditioned space itself, and that all information of consciousness is carried and transmitted by radiant fields as holograms detectable and simply reconstructed and holographically experienced by perceptive ZP consciousness—as thoroughly explained by simple coherent energy projection/reflection (see my web site***)... Then, this model is far more parsimonious than any material based theory could ever be—that tries to introduce the complexity of objective quantum effects and neural correlates, as precursors of both consciousness and its experience of qualia. So, I still claim that subjective consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, etc.) can never be explained using the objective scientific method under its present reductive materialist paradigm. *** http://knol.google.com/k/how-it-all-began#

I think a lot of people would agree that string theory and various other speculations in cosmology are not scientific theories because they cannot be falsified by any reasonably foreseeable experimental technology. String theory has a particular problem because its 10^500 possible solutions makes it hard to envisage an experimental outcome that could falsify it. The fact that it is consistent with relativity and quantum theory, and in fact has the attractive feature of reconciling them, does not make it a scientific theory. To the extent that string theory is allowed to promote itself as scientific, this is more a political result of it being favoured by prestigious institutions and individuals. I won't claim to have grasped everything proposed in the ABC model, but it does look at first sight to fall into the same category as string theory. My only other comment is to wonder whether we need anything quite as complex as ABC. Simplicity is regarded as a virtue in scientific theory. A proposition that the structure of spacetime can code for qualia might be sufficient, and might also hint at something about the origin of the universe. Simon

Brent, You say... "Perhaps you could propose a statement modification that would clear up this apparent confusion, where you think this camp does not include what you are talking about?" There's no question that my statement is entirely "scientific" -- since pure science is simply the search for the truth of how everything works (including both Heaven and Earth ;-). And that's just what the ABC theory is the culmination of. However, the scientific method's rules require that any scientific theory must be both falsifiable and predictive. And, although my ABC hypothetical model of cosmogenesis, mind and consciousness, as stated in my camp, is predictive of all observed physical phenomena -- it is not falsifiable by any verifiable conventional scientific theories or observations. In fact, it is perfectly in accordance with all proven theories of relativity and quantum dynamics (although it proposes an entirely new non-materialistic paradigm of fundamental initial causal or primal beginning of a cyclically manifest metaphysical and hyperspatial, multidimensional cosmic reality, that resolves all conventional science's inconsistencies, paradoxes and anomalies). Therefore, since it proposes a new paradigm of fundamental (pre-spacetime) eternal unconditioned consciousness, coupled with potential energy (as infinite spin momentum) along with infinite holographic constructive information—which underlies all phenomenal existence, and consequently, thereby making consciousness a ubiquitous quality of absolute zero-point space—it does not fall under the conventional "scientific method... Just like all string, SUSY, or M theories. Nevertheless, these theories are still "scientific"—but also, not in accord with the conventional "scientific method". So, the only way my ABC theory could be accommodated under this camp would be if, in its title, the words "scientific method" were substituted by the word "science"—and if, in its statement, all claims that unconditioned consciousness, or potential awareness, will, qualia, etc., can ever be made effable (or explainable in words or scientific terms) are eliminated. It would also be useful if, in this camp statement, there would be a clear distinction between such unconditioned or access consciousness, and the conditioned phenomenal consciousness/unconsciousness of all sentient beings... Since my ABC theory postulates a fundamentally conscious pre cosmic space-time, whose subjective quality splits into infinite zero-points at the center of the ZPE or spin momentum originating and empowering all particle standing waves (and their composite forms)... These conscious ZPs are spread out ubiquitously, between zero and infinity, throughout total multidimensional (hyperspherical} spacetime... This, being the root of the holographic principle—as another postulate of the ABC model, as well as being the rootless root of the phenomenal consciousness, and the superficially described, but not entirely explained physical world of scientific materialism—which you and all the rest of this camp are talking about. Actually, in spite of the new paradigm, the ABC model is entirely in conformance with the proven theory of general relativity—except for its assumptions about the cause of gravity, and its limitation only to our lowest order physical/material space-time (which, incidentally, prevented Einstein from achieving a unified field theory using the scientific method). I hope this clarifies my position. Leon

Hi Lenny, Saying the ABC theory can "be easily demonstrated by simple mind experiments" is, by definition science, and all you are talking about is included in this "science". I challenge you to find any evidence indicating anyone, especially in this camp, that would say "We believe consciousness to be approachable via the scientific method. " does not include exactly all the demonstrable stuff you are talking about. Perhaps you could propose a statement modification that would clear up this apparent confusion, where you think this camp does not include what you are talking about? Brent Allsop

Hi Junius, There is no 'late', things are just getting started, and still a bit slow. You said: "I am less clear why you should need to go beyond the idea of consciousness as a code, pattern or measurement in this fundamental space-time." Codes and measurements are all abstract representations that must be interpreted, to get to what they 'represent'. A Patter could be the same, if you are talking about a 'pattern' in the interpretation of a representations. But, if you are talking about a pattern of something physical, such as the pattern of 650 nm light reflecting off of a red strawberry, that is something real with fundamental properties. Many other things can be interpreted to represent this pattern of light, but it must be interpreted, and is not fundamentally like it. We can represent it's causal properties, with the firing of the optic nerve, but - again, the optic nerve firing 'pattern' must be interpreted as the light, in order to know what the firing represents. All of this is only causal properties, and when everyone takes this to the quantum level, it is still the same - just causal properties, which can be interpreted as representing other causal properties. But, in addition to causal properties, or what it is causally like, something, at least in our brain, also has ineffable phenomenal properties. Our brain uses such to represent 650 nm light. And like everything else, you must interpret this red, as meaning something that is reflecting 650 nm light. But, unlike simple 'codes and measurements' these phenomenal properties are ineffably more. There is something red is phenomenally like, and it is not like green, so together they can represent 650 and 500 nm light. A red phenomenal property is much more than an abstract representation that, by design, doesn't matter what it is represent with, as long as you properly interpret it. For our knowledge, what it is represented with, and what it is phenomenally like, and how we are aware of this, is all important. Brent

Hi Brent, You ask: "Are you saying that some parts of your theory aren't experienceable, or sharable, or controllable or demonstrable in any way to others?' I respond: No. What I am saying is that the ABC model is a new scientific paradigm that does not depend on any conventional physics—but which can be easily demonstrated by simple mind experiments and proven by rigorous causative logical analysis based on absolute fundamental principles, conservation laws, and reasonable propositions that consciousness (as the necessarily stationary detector/receiver/perceiver of vibratory image information, and the applier of directed willful intent) cannot be explained as an epiphenomena of any vibrating material substances, electrochemical processes, or energy fields... Therefore, awareness and will, along with the subjective experience of qualia must be fundamental qualities of inert and unconditioned, yet infinitely potentially energetic, absolute (pre-cosmic) zero-point space. It also implies that the universe is a hologram, with all its structural and experiential information stored and transmitted through resonant EM fields of varying harmonic frequency phase orders. This is obvious, since it can be shown experimentally that all visual information of the entire cosmos converges as a hologram in every zero-point of view in 3-D space. Further, this stationary aspect of each conscious POV is essential for us (as a fixed reference) to enable our instantaneous analog positional computation and judgments coordinating our body positions with holographic audio/visual mental images that correspond exactly with the objective 3-D outer world. Thus, a baseball fielder can instantaneously judge the ballistic trajectory of a fly ball and catch it on the run and jump. This implies that unconditioned consciousness is the fundamental nature of every zero-point—located everywhere in 3-space... And thus, all forms of matter are potentially conscious... Thereby, limiting the brain to serve only as the transponder (transformer, processor, converter, channel switcher, etc.) between the sense receptors and ZP conscious awareness, and as the similar transponder between the ZP conscious will (or intention) and the neuromuscular system... With all of it mediated, holographically, through the brain's EM field, coupled with the resonant higher order hyperspace fields of mind-memory, which are linked directly to conscious awareness and will (at their zero points of origin). Thus, there is no separation between our individual self-consciousness and every other point of consciousness within the same reference frame (bounded by the highest order harmonic field surrounding that frame's ZP center of origin). Such fields, that interpenetrate and surround the body, would have to extend (at their highest harmonic level) at least as far as the visible universe. This, however, is limited only by the finite resolution of our physical visual sense mechanisms—although, our zero-point of consciousness, capable of spiritual discernment (in deep Samadhi meditation) of near infinite frequency modulations, can have no such finite limits. BTW, the only way to really understand all this, since hyperspace information fields, along with consciousness and qualia are truly ineffable (and always will be)—is to subjectively experience their internal processes directly... By going into deep mind control meditation, such as explained in Patanjali's yoga aphorisms, while using my ZP field diagrams (along with my explanations of how consciousness actually works) as "seeds". It also helps to have some knowledge of how a hologram works—using the 2-D surface of those fields as the information media. When you can understand that a color can only be defined, transmitted, and detected as a particular wavelength of light (at any frequency phase order spectrum)—and that color is not a physical property of the object it reflects from or transmits through—then everything will become as clear as the color of a fresh strawberry or a stripe on an American flag (neither of which are made out of the same stuff). Therefore, its obvious that color cannot be a physical property of the brain—since our experience of a particular color is determined solely by our zero-point of perceptive consciousness discriminating its frequency/wave length. Thus, if a particular red is 675nm, any object reflecting that wavelength will be experienced as that shade of red (unless defects in the eye or the brain processing distorts or changes the frequency). You also say: "The Representational Qualia theory predicts we will soon be 'effing' the ineffable, something many doubters are predicting will not be possible. Of course, when we eff the first qualia to all such doubters, their theory will be so falsified, that they must convert to our camp." "Are you saying there is no way to do anything like this for the doubters of ABC?" I respond: No. But, since "effing" the ineffable means explaining in words or symbols what cannot be explained in such objective terms—such as the actual subjective experience of consciousness, i.e., what is the smell of a rose or the taste of honey? Therefore, I doubt if there can be such a thing as a physical (i.e., objective) representation of qualia (which is entirely a subjective experience). I am also sure that—since such a theory totally contradicts the reality that there has never been any evidence of the physical representation in the brain of a color (or a qualia of any kind)—the recording and transmission of a particular color must be either as a modulated frequency in a radiant field, or as a chemical structure that reflects or transmits a particular wave length of light and absorbs all others. Consequently, there is a serious doubt in my mind that your representative qualia theory can ever be proved. As for the ABC model... All current post modern physics and cosmic observations, are beginning to get closer and closer to a new paradigm of physics postulating a self generating cyclic physical universe, as part of a metaphysical cosmos, self created in an infinite beginningless and endless plenum that is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent... All of which more and more looks like the holographic principle and hyperspherical fractal field structure predicted by this ABC model... Which is based on infinite unconditioned consciousness, infinite spin momentum on infinite axial angles of fractal field involution, and evolution through resonant morphogenetic fields, which contain (in totality) infinite structural and experiential information, as holographic wave interference patterns on their spherical surfaces. All any doubters of the ABC model have to do is prove that there is any other scientifically methodological way to explain the cause and nature of consciousness (awareness, will, qualia, thinking, knowing, creating, doing, etc.) along with fully describing the physical (and hyper or metaphysical) mechanisms linking it experientially (at the informational level) with mind, memory, brain, body, senses, world, etc. And after that, they would still have to unequivocally prove that evolution is based on random or chance mutation. Until then (which I don't doubt will be long after I leave this world, if ever;-)—I will continue to stick to my guns, and keep on searching for the final proof that will convince everyone, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the only true deific principle or everlasting impersonal God, is the infinite consciousness of unconditioned Absolute Space itself. Therefore, it's only this total cosmos that can be "The mind of God"—which both Hawking and Einstein hoped to read. However, in my ABC view, it's an open book... And, "The Word" is the first cyclically vibrating manifestation of the initial triune field of cosmogenesis—which contains, as holograms on its infinite multidimensional field circumferences, all the intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, or structural/experiential information accumulated from all its previous cycles of manifestation. Thus, everything and everyone is interconnected in a simple and complete model of phenomenal reality that can serve as a fundamental basis to explain anything—scientifically, philosophically, or religiously With all of it being based on a fundamental law of cycles, inherent in original spin momentum, that governs all phenomenal existences (which includes infinite possible universes). So, this ABC theory of cosmogonists, mind and consciousness, with virtually no explanatory gaps, will continue to stand, alone and apart from all other scientific or philosophical theories that contradict its basic premises and underlying fundamental principles. (Unless they can be unequivocally proven wrong.) Lenny