Quoting you:  “We refer to the computationally bound "world in our head" as a "spirit world" composed of physically real phenomenal (spiritual) qualities.;"

"Knowledge of our spirit is also in this spirit world and is normally represented as if residing in our had, just behind our eyes (but can have out of body experiences, all within this spirit world, in our head).”

Question:  What kind of experience would be an “out of body experience… within this spirit world” which spirit world is, by your definition, within the head?    Is not something that is within the head within the body?   How is this possible?  

Another Question:  Is it not fair to assume that your post, in a public forum, was intended to elicit feedback that is thoughtful about that post.   Is it not fair to assume that your discussion in a public forum should be also interpreted to invite feedback and thoughtful discourse?  

Related Questions:   What standard do you employ to identify valid, interested and sincere questions, as the questions of an asshole?   Is there a concisely quantifiable criteria by which your view of assholiness might be canonized for those who wish to better understand it?   Is there a seminar or other course of study that you might recommend one take in order to acquire the enlightenment required to recognize any assholiness that you believe to be self evident to you, but is yet not, to them?   

These are not rhetorical questions.  Inquiring minds want to know.   Clearly you have many demands on your time, and may not consider such inquiring minds to be worth much of it, given those demands and priorities, so we can wait patiently for a response at your convenience, or, sadly, accept no response to be an indication of understandable priorities.   

I will concede that an "asshole" has been made manifest in this discussion, as you suggest.   But I think we remain in disagreement as to who better qualifies by points scored in this exchange.  (a smile)

Quoting You:  “You are clearly misunderstanding most of what I believe to be consciousness, resulting in your incorrect judgements that I am being intellectually dishonest, based on your mistaken misinterpretations.”

My reply:  First, I don’t believe that I made a “judgement that [you] are being intellectually dishonest”.    I simply suggested that intellectual honesty would require a certain acknowledgement, under certain circumstances and also suggested that it should be a Value of the Canonizer.   I do believe that you are intellectual dishonest from time to time, but that judgment was not made in this instance.   I most certainly do, now, however, make it about your reply.

Second, If the shoes of intellectual dishonesty were to apply to you, in this instance (referring to your post, not your reply), in the way I was discussing that it should be considered, that would be relevant not to what you believe or disbelieve, but rather, how you represent the beliefs of others to garner support for your belief and dissuade support from the beliefs of others.   So, my understanding or misunderstanding of your views or theories, is irrelevant to the point about intellectual honesty that I was making.  

Interestingly, however, your instant misrepresentation with spin (in your reply), of what I was saying in this reply, is precisely relevant to the point about intellectual honesty that I was making.  (a smile).

Quoting you:  “Our description of glutamate, reacting in a synapse (well understood objectively observable science, of today) is one and the same as our description of redness (a spiritual quality).  The only thing we are missing, is the connection between the subjective quality of redness, and what we are objectively observing (glutamate reacting in a synapse.  When we objectively describe regular old matter, like glutamate, those descriptions are describing the behavior of spiritual or phenomenal qualities, which we can directly apprehend.  There is no new physics, or anything even close to any woo woo physics anywhere in that.”

Responding:   So, the “spirit” you are referring to is now the phenomenal qualities of redness that we can directly apprehend.   A rather arbitrary use of the label, “spirit”, but OK.  

The snideness quality of the assertion that your view is not “even close to any woo woo physics” suggests, by its use, that some put down of woo woo physics is somehow relevant at this juncture.  

Since, even where incorrect, to whatever extent that might be, my attempt at characterizing my understanding of the RQT theory in no way suggested it to be “woo woo” physics, or in any other way disparaged it or even criticized it…. it is therefore reasonable to infer that you think something else I have said involves “woo woo” physics.  

Clearly, “woo woo” physics qualifies as an arbitrarily and subjectively disparaging term whether or not it applies.   So, it departs from any reasonable notion of civility on those grounds and embraces an unreasonable disregard for objectivity on very unscientific grounds.   

Now, add to that the contextual reality that nothing I have said that I consider to be a valid alternate theory is any less physical than part of what you are referring to, (“we are missing the connection between the subjective qualify of redness and what we are objectively observing….”).   So, given that context the “woo woo” observation is not only arbitrarily and subjectively disparaging, but also falsely applied and therefore qualifies as disingenuous or intellectually dishonest characterization of an alternate view.   

So, I think you have made and demonstrated my point about intellectual honesty, which was, when offered, a hypothetical observation, as opposed to an actual accusation, quite well.          

Quoting you: “And computational binding, is simply the neurons synchronously oscillating, together, in standing waves, which pulls all the pixels of color, and all our other thoughts together, to be a composite qualitative experience or consciousness.”

Responding:   And you are arguing now that this computational binding as you have described it is observable in today’s world with today’s instruments and technology?

Quoting you:  “I'm trying to describe things in a humble way (rolling my eyes), to be inclusive of other yet to be falsified theories than "Molecular Materialism", the only problem is, when you do that, certain assholes jump all over those kinds of things, completely misinterpreting them, then, based on those mistaken misinterpretations, judging and accusing you of grievous sins like intellectual dishonesty.”

Responding:   There’s no chance this might be just a tad over sensitive and excessive as a reaction?   Particularly evidence by the fact that you missed what I was referring to as intellectual honesty and that it was a hypothetical observation and not an accusation?

Quoting:  “I use that "woo woo" label for even the quantum physics of quantum theories, yet I support that as one of my last choice theories, to bad many ass holes mistakenly misinterpret those kinds of things with prejudice, instead of benefit of the doubt.”

Responding:   You don’t think the uncharitable label “woo woo” might both demonstrate and elicit prejudice?   You regard it as “civil”?   You regard it as an “intellectual honest” characterization of another view? 

Quoting you:  “We need to find some way to describe that anti woo woo doctrine, so we can get it canonized….”

Responding:   I don’t know what “anti woo woo doctrine you might be referring to…..   and the obvious hostility and double standard does not inspire a great deal of desire to inquire further what it might be.

You are clearly misunderstanding most of what I believe to be consciousness, resulting in your incorrect judgements that I am being intellectually dishonest, based on your mistaken misinterpretations.

Our description of glutamate, reacting in a synapse (well understood objectively observable science, of today) is one and the same as our description of redness (a spiritual quality).  The only thing we are missing, is the connection between the subjective quality of redness, and what we are objectively observing (glutamate reacting in a synapse.  When we objectively describe regular old matter, like glutamate, those descriptions are describing the behavior of spiritual or phenomenal qualities, which we can directly apprehend.  There is no new physics, or anything even close to any woo woo physics anywhere in that.

And computational binding, is simply the neurons synchronously oscillating, together, in standing waves, which pulls all the pixels of color, and all our other thoughts together, to be a composite qualitative experience or consciousness.

I'm trying to describe things in a humble way, to be inclusive of other yet to be falsified theories than "Molecular Materialism", the only problem is, when you do that, certain assholes jump all over those kinds of things, completely misinterpreting them, then, based on those mistaken misinterpretations, judging and accusing you of grievous sins like intellectual dishonesty.

A critical part of what I believe is there is absolutely no "woo wooo" (probably not the best label for what I hear you describing your beliefs to be, maybe you could provide a better label).

I use that "woo woo" label for even the quantum physics of quantum theories, yet I support that as one of my last choice theories, to bad many ass holes mistakenly misinterpret those kinds of things with prejudice, instead of benefit of the doubt.

We need to find some way to describe that anti woo woo doctrine, so we can get it canonized, the importance of consciousness not needing any woo woo or disembodied physics.  It's partially included in the "approachable via science" camp, but obviously, not sufficiently, because it still includes theories like  quantum theories, and whatever your theory is.  Somehow, I want my main camp to declare that I don't believe anything like that which you evidently do believe in.

correction... would equally apply to your qualia

Actually (lol), I do get that a neural pony tail is a very different thing than a meridian that already exists (assuming it does) on a finer matter level (than a firewire, usb cord, or neural pony tail), but it sounds like you do not have an issue with finer matter, given your acknowledgement of the "spirit".    Of course you describe the "spirit" that you acknowledge to be physically real and objectively observable.... but, to my understanding of your view, that notion of "objectively observable" presumes technology and instruments of observation that are not in existence today.   Your RQT theory is not that qualia is observable today, but that one day it will be with the development of finer instrumentation and related technology.   So, therefore, your theory of RQT acknowledges (by implication) the existence of some type of matter that has yet to be observed today... hence, not yet observable, yet theoretically physical on some level that will be observable in the future.   Since meridians are not believed to be "supernatural" but rather, simply energy that qualifies as physical and potentially observable by the same standards, a hard elimination of meridians from the realm of theoretical possibility is unfounded for lack of falsification that would not equally apply to your qualia.   (a smile)    I think intellectual honesty would require an acknowledgment of an alternate theory that has not been falsified without disingenuously branding it as a "ghost theory" that necessarily involves some supernatural phenomena that it does not require.   

I recommend that Canonizer Values be updated to include intellectual honesty in discussion, which would preclude and rule out misrepresenting other views in an effort to sway opinion for a particular camp.   Good science being honest science.  Wouldn't you agree?   

Of course if intellectual honesty becomes a requirement of the Canonizer, that is a significant marketing risk, because so many "experts" receive funding from sources (often government related) precisely on the condition of arbitrarily supporting targeted research and development and discrediting alternative theories that compete for the same funding by using spin, manipulated data and research, and misrepresentations to garner support and discredit competition.   (a smile)

I don't see any meaningful difference between our beliefs (theories) other than your notion of neural pony tails that your transhumanist buddies create..... as opposed to my information that meridians that connect our consciousness to consciousness outside the body already exist.    You just won't acknowledge even the theoretical possibility of anything that isn't endorsed, created, and controlled by your buddies.   ( or so it would seem, even if its the same concept)

Well that (your last statement) sure sounds like to do believe in the conceptual future possibility of disembodied consciousness because it sounds like that is exactly what you are describing as the future potential of the "spirits" you are tying to liberate (break out of the mortal phenomenal prison walls).    So what's your big freaking problem with me believing in that?   

We are currently trapped inside this world inside our skull, due to the "veil of perception." weakness of our senses since they can't directly apprehend things or do computational binding.

But once we can create neural ponytails that can computationally bind to things outside of our skull, this will free our spirit from these prison walls, that are our skull.

We refer to the computationally bound "world in our head" as a "spirit world" composed of physically real phenomenal (spiritual) qualities.;

Knowledge of our spirit is also in this spirit world and is normally represented as if residing in our had, just behind our eyes (but can have out of body experiences, all within this spirit world, in our head).

Unlike all the other knowledge of what is around us, this knowledge of our spirit does not have a referent in reality.

But that doesn't mean that this knowledge of our spirit is not physically real and objectively observable.

We do believe in physical "spirits" like this, we do not believe in disembodied ghosts.