It appears that you are chagrined by the concept of a universal consciousness.
If you are of the Pinker worldview, that the mind/consciousness/soul is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain then your denial is part of that worldview. And we are in hopeless disagreement and there is nothing further to discuss. Weve covered Pinker exhaustively on a number of threads already the latest being on the Meyer thread starting at 513.
The reason I found the Sirag article interesting is two-fold. First, betty boop and I are pursuing the pivotal question of what is life v non-life/death in nature (The latest discussion is on the Monist thread) Secondly, I share in Einsteins dream to transmute the base wood of matter to the pure marble of geometry at bottom, the physical realm is all geometry. Thus, when we speak to a field-like will to live common to all of life we are suggesting that it exists in all points of space/time. This could also be seen as dimensional, hence my interest in Tegmarks Level IV universe and also in the ADEX theory proposed by Sirag.
I cant find much more on Sirags speculations on consciousness except for these Notes on Hyperspace and an email dialogue he had with Sarfatti here: Science Archive Institute The following excerpt might be interesting to Lurkers:
I think this is close to the Level IV Super Platonism in Max Tegmark's "Parallel Universes" in May 2003 Scientific American? All mathematics is implemented physically is his idea. You agree? You further think that V.I. Arnold's math may be the Mother of All Math - The Mathematical Theory of Everything. Then we have Wigner's "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in Physics."
On the VALIS theme, its historical roots are well-presented in Erik Davis's "Tech Gnosis."
"This means that each of the many types of mathematical object that is A-D-E classified is a separate window into this vast reality. [Note: Mathematicians are wondering what mathematical entity underlies the A-D-E graphs. I say it is not a mathematical entity, but reality itself--physical, mental, and perhaps more than these (much debated) categories entail. The mathematics is the set of mathematical categories classified by the A-D-E graphs, each providing a different "map" of the territory of reality. The overall name for my approach is ADEX-theory -- the study and application of all the A-D-E graphs, with the X indicating the (mostly unknown) reality underlying the set of A-D-E classifications; and X also indicates the aspect of going beyond the A-D-E graphs via the three E type graphs as doorways into the enormous extension of the graphs (which has been only partly explored by V.I. Arnold and his students)."
OK. Good. This is the clearest you have been on this. I would like you to include this in the third book of the Space-Time and Beyond Series
Saul-Paul Sirag himself was also associated with the International Space Science Organization which was evidently run by a Creon Levit who was a NASA Ames nano-technology scientist. The outfit was formed by Joe Firmage a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who evidently had a huge interest in space and related mysteries, enough so to fund physics projects outside the mainstream. His ISSO venture was consolidated with others and is now called Motion Sciences Organization. He is also associated with Cosmos Studios (a Carl Sagan related venture), Institute for Noetic Sciences (again, that Eastern mysticism touch), and Integral Institute.
Evidently these scientists are quite respectable but at the same time, not in the mainstream. That never bothers me because even the lowly turtle cannot make progress without sticking his neck out.
If you are of the Pinker worldview, that the mind/consciousness/soul is merely an epiphenomenon of the physical brain...
I wouldn't put it quite that way. Above the level of, say, viruses, the properties of living cells and their organized assemblages are fairly easily distinguished from the properties of non-living matter. But in every case, cells and their assemblages utilize environmentally available energy resources to maintain and reproduce themselves. These processes (living and reproducing, or, as C.S. Peirce put it, "feeding and breeding") are what living things do. In more complex organisms, consciousness (and, in our special case, self-consciousness) appears as a feature of the operations of living and reproducing. I incline to the view that consciousness 'emerges' as cellular assemblages reach a certain (as yet not easily specifiable) level of complexity (although I wouldn't be prepared to claim that that view has been shown to be true). Rather than a 'mere epiphenomenon', consciousness appears to be a rather interesting mode of operation of highly complex cellular assemblages.
And I would add: without a ramified physical substrate of some sort (a substrate capable of stably supporting the variety of structures and functions which underlie conscious behavior), it's most unlikely that consciousness can exist. There is a heavy burden of proof on those who would posit the possibility of disembodied consciousness (or 'universal consciousness' or 'supermind').
Finally, I would still like to know what it means to "identify the E7 reflection space (a 7-d complex space) with universal consciousness." I'm unable to attach significance to the identification of a mathematical object with a (presumably) physical process the existence of which is entirely unsupported by evidence.