Essay

Essay. We did discuss this before. The IPCC assumes a change of only .5W/m-2 between a "Maunder Minimum" and the "Solar Maximum" of the 20th century. I have previously pointed out that this conclusion is based on one paper and is in opposition to all previous papers and works on this. I have also pointed out that the person responsible for choosing the paper which the IPCC relies on for its values is a co-author of the paper. (I know, that means nothing because climate scientists are of a higher moral standard than everybody else and things like "Conflict of Interest" don't apply to them) However if the worst predictions for the next cycle are bourne out and it turns into a full blown "Minima" we will be able to see which proxy values were correct. If the TSI drops by .5W/m-2 then the IPCC values are correct, if it drops by 2 w/m-2 then the IPCC values are crap and their attribution values similarly useless and the entire Northern Hemisphere is in for a shedload of trouble. "...if it drops by 2 w/m-2 then...." ~JohnB, 2Watts! John, where are you getting numbers like that from?!? JohnB, We talked about how a small forcing, of long duration, changes climate noticeably. I recall pointing out how a change (in the solar constant) of about 0.5 W/m^2 in solar forcing, over several hundred years, was calculated to have occurred between the Medieval Warm Period and the Little IceAge; and how it was associated with that change in climate. I may have cited one paper to show that point, which iirc you pointed out, but that paper was based on numerous other studies (a meta analysis of records & proxies) of solar activity during that period; wasn't it? Maybe I'm recalling something else.... Well whatever, certainly the IPCC assessment of solar insolation and variability is based on more than one paper; isn't it? === Notice also (below) the first two points: Compared with the solar changes, greenhouse forcing has over an order of magnitude greater effect. It looks as if they use more than one paper; and fairly current stuff too. How many papers is this "Harmonic Component" suggestion based upon? 1. Scafetta, N. 2. ? (...i'm sure there are more, but could you point me to a link or review; thanks) But whatever you say about solar influences, at least they vary; they come and go, and wax and wane over the decades and centuries. CO2 will always be "on" --Watt after extra Watt-- from pole to pole, 24/7/365, for many centuries to come. So we need to reduce CO2. And y'know John, even if they are wrong, and if you doubled the solar changes, then the drift in the solar constant would still be dwarfed by the CO2 forcing. Greenhouse gas forcing is 10 to 20 times stronger than forcing from the long-term solar influence . ~

...I'm not sure what I missed over the past few hours, and (maybe I should have entitled my last post "Lunchtime Little Theater"); but: re: "...giberish...." Right.... That was not meant to promote any particular cosmology, or to unite space and time mathematically. The point was to move beyond your preconceptions and see space/time as something other than fundamental; to see spacetime as derivative of something else--anything else, whatever gibberish it may be comprised of. Seeing spacetime as an artifact of some other reality helps overcome those preconceptions. <Or> If that doesn't help, try visualizing "all that exists" (space) without time. How does it come to be without time; can anything happen or change or inflate without time? Also, try visualizing change (time) without any existence or space. How can time exist without something or some place to operate upon? It's not about melding time and space together; but rather seeing that neither can exist without the other, or at least that their existence (or the concept of either space or time) is meaningless without the concept or existence of the other. === <Then> Once space and time become derivative properties or at least inseparable in your mind, then it is easier to see them as a single property that responds or interacts or can be measured. Think of spacetime as a seesaw which may be viewed as smaller or larger, or as turned, or tipped to emphasize the space or time aspects more, but it is still just the seesawing of a single property. Whatever you do, I think it is important to break the preconceptions of seeing space or time as fundamental properties. That was to be the only importance or significance to the flying spaghetti monster cosmology--viewing spacetime as derived from some more fundamental reality--breaking preconceptions. ~ but maybe not?

Try not to think of space or time as fundamental; think of them (it) as derivative of some higher reality, or as an artifact of some process in some other (true) reality. Your picture of spacetime might benefit from losing that "concept" of time, and then starting over with 8 dimensions (of nonspatial attributes) visualized as a large ball of 8 strands of wet spaghetti. They are all touching, there is no empty space. As different strands touch, crossing over and looping back and sliding over other strands, and as other parts of the strand do the same with other strands at various other places within the ball, change (or a state) occurs and then those interactions (or the statements) are perceived as a shadow which we call spacetime. There is but the illusion of space and time; everything is part of a whole and still touching everything else, all at once--now. Consciousness of Change or process in the fundamental dimensions will generate the illusion of space--here--creating the illusion of time, which can only be expressed and perceived as changes in space. Consciousness is (or causes, or is expressed as) the expansion of spacetime. Alternatively, if the flying spaghetti monster doesn't help break your preconceptions, consider how the term "space" would be meaningless without the time that allows space to be or to change; and how the term "time" would be meaningless without the space that allows change to occur. You can't have change without a place, and you can't have a place without change. ...Well you can, but then this would all be an illusion; which brings us back to the illusion of spacetime. It is only an artifact of some higher dimensional reality. ~

Thanks! This paper, which includes Michael Mann as an author, only backs up the suggestion that short-term fluctuations in transient forcers will lead to deviations from the long-term projections. These do not change the impact of long-term, relatively permanent forcers such as CO2. Yikes! Over 5x the rate ...and still increasing, I imagine.... This may become more than a transient forcer. I wonder if they are having acid rain problems... or if Japan is, or if Alaska or the Arctic are having acid snow problems.... ~

Of course, in the real world, your points are completely correct. The phrasing of the OP suggested an answer on the level of "On the most simple, theoretical level...." I assumed race was only used in the OP as a random example of "gene-inheritance from parents," and I hope this doesn't end up in the sociology or politics forum. ~

Yea, that is why I ended with "regenerating some electricity." But if you used solar or wind power, then it would be even more "heat negative." I wasn't serious when I started writing that post; but the more the idea developed, the more it seemed theoretically possible. I just don't know if enough (relatively dense) heated air could be channeled up to a point where it would lose heat and either fall back or be released. Depending on how the tube was insulated, you might be able to overcome gravity with buoyancy, istm. But I'm more of a biophysical chemist than a physical ecoengineer; so could use some critique of that seemingly crazy idea. ~

If we put giant air conditioners at the bottom of the "spacetube," with the hot exchanged air being directed into and up the tube, then maybe a draft would be created --rising up through the various inversion layers in our normal atmosphere-- at which point "vacuum" energy, or the potential pressure differential, might kick in and start sucking out the atmosphere from below. It'd probably be possible to design a venturi that would self limit the escaping air, or design other things to modulate the flow. And of course, if you need to "limit" the flow, then you can tap that for energy--as with a windmill, turbine, etc. Perhaps some heat exchanger (some artificial cloud of chemicals or nanomaterials) might even keep the atmosphere in (or recycled), while allowing the excess heat to escape. Eureka! Giant airconditioners can offset global warming while regenerating some electricity! ~ hmmmmmm

....The bets were on when they sequenced the human genome, and many bets were for that range of 70-100k genes in our genome, so many were very surprised to see that we have far fewer genes than a corn plant ...or not much more than a mouse or chicken (iirc). I think it is only about 20,000 genes that humans have (but I think that does not count the "junk DNA"), which is being found to be more than useless junk. It may be up to 23,000 genes for humans, and on a DNA level we are very similar to chimps; but on the level of how those genes are arranged, and when they are activated during development, and for how long they are activated or at what concentration they are activated, there is a lot of room for differing end results. Some genes are used once (during development) for building the digestive system, and then later during development for building the brain system. Some genes get duplicated, and the original gene retains the function while the duplicate is allowed to mutate and experiment with new functions. ANd then there is also epigenetics (something to google). There are many ways that the same genes can produce varied creatures, and when you also add different genes (even just a few) in the right place and at the right time in a creature's genome, then you get some unique and marvelous "new" species. With just a few handfuls of letters, we build an extensive dictionary--out of which many different novels, treatises, poetry and prose, eventually evolve. Sean B. Carroll likens the genome to an artist's palette, where a few colors can be mixed and matched in time and space to create many different compositions. Google: Sean B. Carroll and "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" to catch a great lecture. ...or any lecture by him would be worthwhile i bet.... ~

So if you connect space to the ground, via a carbon nanofiber tube (alongside a space elevator?), then ...what: does air flow up the tube toward the vacuum? Gravity still operates. Are you talking about some sort of siphon?

Eureka!

Where does the vacuum come from? How is it generated, or what creates the vacuum?

On the most simple, theoretical level, that sounds like an valid understanding.

But these weren't neglected factors. If you think there are neglected factors, you could get rich pointing them out! I remain skeptical of your hope that "they just might find [it's] ...benign." CO2 is demonstrated, through physics reproduced for over a century now, to be climate active. On what do you base your hope? p.s. I'm not a working expert in climate models, so I'll welcome a more accurate explanation ...if my details are wrong; but the overall comprehension should still be valid. ...I think we "know enough...." I think you're confusing responses to short-term and very transitory changes in the system, with the responses expected from long-term, relatively permanent, forcers-- and then judging the model by that. The reply was about "missing heat" and I can see how, from my rhetorical questions above (#250), you might think those aspects (solar and ice sheets) are not included in the models, but.... They are included, though they are not themselves modeled. In other words, we don't have models of how solar activity or ice sheet dynamics will evolve, so they can only include a "constant" or a "trend" that becomes part of the baseline upon which the modeled forcers then act and evolve. For the sun, this "assumption" of nearly constant activity (within the limits of sunspot cycles) is detailed in the IPCC reports. Please note that models such as this are to indicate long-term trends, which is why the recent hiccup in the sunspot cycle shouldn't affect the long-term results (but may affect short term observations). It is also why pointing to a sub-decadal divergence in temperature, as a flaw, is misleading. If the sun's hiccup turns into a long-term change in solar activity, then the models will need to readjust their existing solar component. And so until that time, the sun is still accounted for in the models. === For the Ice Sheets, the solution has less supporting evidence. Climate models works well at simulating the response to various ice-sheet scenarios, but we have no good way to predict which ice-sheet scenario will develop. There is no clear way to validate a model of ice sheet dynamics, not that there are many; nor are there good paleorecords of ice sheet responses. So as with solar forcings, they plug in a constant or constant trend (I'm oversimplifying, but relatively it conveys the picture), and watch the system evolve when given a certain polar albedo, etc., determined by the "expected" ice-sheet cover. The news about Arctic melting over the past decade has shown that the IPCC projections for Ice-Sheet decay trends were too conservative, underestimating the melting--the loss of ice thickness, and the decreasing extent of ice cover. If this turns out to be more than a hiccup, and instead turns into a progressing trend, then the models will need to recalculate how quickly climate responses may be expected over the next century. === These points about the solar cycle or Arctic melting are more like a new volcano erupting and changing weather for a few years, but which were not included in the climate models. Either they become explainable hiccups in the model, or they become a new trend that needs to be accounted for. Climate science still operates like all the other sciences. It's a circle of observations and predictions, and observing discrepencies and refining predictions; explaining what we see, what we have seen, and what we can expect to see.... === All this concern about recent temperature trends misses the big point about how we are changing the atmospheric chemistry of our only home, and how this is affecting weather extremes, water resources, and ocean and soil chemistry--and their consequent food webs. ~

This caught my eye.... ...so I read a bit more.... ...oh neat; economic theory based on observation of reality ...vs. ideology.... Gosh, what a treat! Very good analysis, but I think you overlook food in your solution. Food may have been thrown out with the rest of "Nature" in your model of reality; but is your problem with "nature" philosophic or phobic? Why exclude nature from the options for introducing some new technologies? We can advance to better manage and utilize nature; it's not about staying in (or going back to) the stone age. Hey! I thought I was the only one who felt that way.... Welcome to the club.... "So if the amount of work and new jobs is proportional to the Speed of Change and Introduction of New Technologies, this means that the speed of change has slowed down quite a bit...."That's an interesting premise. Perhaps there is no slowdown (globally), and it just seems that way (here) because the growth in jobs occurs in countries (there) i.e. China, which can keep up with the pace of change without violating local laws and standards. ...free salaries to all... for doing what? Yep, as if everyone should become a successful, innovative entrepreneur. But if everyone becomes a business owner, who gets hired to work? We need a more natural distribution of jobs; with many more average, common, living-wage jobs than there are high-tech, high-pay jobs (or low-pay introductory jobs). Just maintaining infrastructure for the high-tech sector should be a significant contribution to the bulk of jobs. Preventing an ocean anoxic event could be another big employment opportunity. Maintaining food production should be a big job producer also, but we need to move beyond our "stone age" mentality of fire-based agriculture, and develop into a species that utilizes a health-based agricultural system. Technology allows us to use fire in many different ways, for many different ends; but we are still a species defined by our use of fire as a tool. And that is the same fire we used in the stone age. Maybe it is time for a new relationship with fire. Pyrolysis could open a new frontier for economic development and wealth creation, if we would recognize the value of reductive pyrolysis over oxidative fire. ~

While the "actual" observations seem to skirt the lower bound of the A1B projection, how do they compare with other IPCC projections? Page 3 of this link has recent trends & projections. Page 4 of this link shows the current levels relative to various projections: http://ats150.atmos....tureClimate.pdf -page 3 === Did the ICPP projection include the longer than normal solar minimum, which we have recently experienced? Did the ICPP projection include the larger than expected melting of polar ice, which we have recently experienced? Do these last two points help account for the "missing heat?" === This site is by an atmospheric sciences professor and has some neat images and graphs. Page 9 has this plot:

Proof of Concept!?! ...about climate?!? Are you rejecting climate science because of the gray areas then? ...So about the climate sensitivity parameter.... They arrive at their consensus by calculating both theoretically (CO2 physics & radiative balance) and from differing sets of empirical observations (Ice Age shifts & MWP/LIA shift). But that doesn't prove anything, though it adds robustness to their conclusion. But does it really matter if they are wrong? It would matter if they had the sign of the sensitivity wrong, but whatever the magnitude is--one or two or three degrees C per Watt of forcing--we are in for a rough ride as we continue to add more forcing; and adding forcing which is permanent (relative to our civilization) and continuous 24/7/365 decade upon decade, from pole to pole--unlike most forcers. === It seems obvious to me that "climate sensitivity can only possibly exist as an abstract concept defining a range dependent on initial conditions and internal dynamics." But I suspect you think that must mean it is too complex to be a useful concept. Both "the balance of nature" and "climate sensitivity" exist as an abstract concept defining a range dependent on initial conditions and internal dynamics--as you say. And as such, each concept is useful in understanding what happens to the relevant system (nature or climate) when a perturbation is introduced. Oh, hey! That is another one to survey--Perturbation Theory! === Why would you even write this? Again, climate science isn't re-defining any words. But neither do you get to declare your pet discipline's definition as exclusive. Did you read the links about how different disciplines define "robust" differently? So when climate science is looking at data, they use robust statistical analyses (hopefully), and when climate science examines the "systems theory" of climate, they calculate the robustness of system components, feedbacks, and overall output. In both cases they are using robustness as appropriately defined by the relevant disciplines. Either you don't fully see how climate science works by combining multiple disciplines, or you are working hard to discredit an entire community with basic yellow journalism tactics. I'm sure it is the former, but if you want to avoid looking like the latter, you should read those links on how these words are used and defined (especially "robust") in the field of systems theories, and especially in chaos theory. Don't be limited to just the discipline of statistics for your understanding or definitions... or maybe I should say: Don't limit climate science to only the understanding or definitions from your favorite discipline of statistics. === I disagree with the way you characterize the development of the science and the history of Green social movements, but I know what you mean about folks who view nature as some ideal state upon which humans can only intrude or disrupt (unless they live like cavemen). Right? Treehuggers have many justifications for relatively insane, special-interest, causes to save this or that. But don't paint climate science with that brush. The pictue is more like the reverse logic from what you presented: 1. We observe and measure how man is changing nature (atmospheric chemistry and composition, land use/ecosystem resource shifts, and ocean chemistry, food chains, and biodiversity). 2. This cumulative change is outside of the "range" "defining" that "balance of nature" (on a geologic time scale). 3. Therefore... Shift will happen in response--and a new balance of nature, and a new climate sensitivity, will be established--eventually. Shift happens, but we don't need to magnify it exponentially. In fact, since a lot of change already happens normally in the system, we should take steps to avoid magnifying climate shift and ecosystem resource degradation. === And another thing about 30 year trends: Why is it... that is was easy to say--when decades ago as people warned of rising temps and melting ice--to say wait another decade or so for true trends to be measured; but now--after only a few years of slower acceleration in temps--now it is easy to claim and perpetuate claims of a conclusive trend? Why don't the denialists need to wait as long as the alarmists were told to wait, before proclaiming the trends as established? === But to conclude: "What I'm trying to do is point out where the underlying assumptions could be incorrect." -JohnB "...Could be...." Could be that solar activity has been unusually low during this period where the temps are still warmer than normal but when the anomoly has "leveled out" (or maxed out) so temps haven't become even more "warmer than normal." ...and/or... Could be there is a mechanism which somewhat limits how much air temperature can increase in a given year; and if more heat continues to be added to the system, then something else changes--such as increased melting of ice, or increased heating of surface waters and the planetary crust. Hey, didn't the Arctic experience larger than predicted melting... during those years when you point to temperature increases (per year) as having maxed out or leveled off? Coincidence? "...Could be...." === Either way, I'm very skeptical of your suggestion that the science is inadequate or that there is some undiscovered mechanism that will prevent extra heat from continuing to change the system dynamics. Do you think the climate system is too big to fail? ...the bigger they are, y'know, the harder they fall.... ~

...that (IR vision) might have only developed once endothermy evolved to become common. But.... That point about exoskeletons and UV abundance is very insightful; do you know of any citation for that, it seems so obvious now that you mention it. The point about visible light hinges upon the fact that it is not energetic enough to destroy too many biological molecules--as does UV. Visible light causes a lot of nuanced excitation of biological molecules (but not enough to break or destroy them) and so a lot of information about the environment can be perceived if you tune into that range. IR causes less nuanced excitation of biological molecules, so less information can be sensed. I think those various ways that molecules respond to light determines how they get used in particular biological systems, and why certain frequency ranges are favored for perception. And it is a fairly narrow range (the visible) where they respond usefully.

But it is based on a narrow range. Any higher and the molecules are broken apart, and lower energy isn't strong enough to kick the electrons around as needed. Then within that narrow range (colors), as Ringer points out, there are only certain molecules that are easy to make, stable, and that work. Evolution worked out using these chromophoric molecules first as protection, then to channel energy, and then modified those to make the tetrameric chlorophyl, which is much more efficient than single pigments. Scientific American (Jan. 2012) had an article, entitled "Tweaking Photosynthesis," which talked about genetically modifying plants to absorb more energy, and suggested maybe black plants would result; but i'd think it'd absorb too much heat (so they'd have to change many enzymes too, istm). Rather than trying to transcend nature, we should aspire to be as good as nature and use the natural systems already in place, imho. ~

"For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men." ...sort of like teaching through demonstration, or setting a good example? In general... These words above seem to be a good description of what science sees as the combined effects of wisdom (from knowledge and learning) and oxytocin (the humanity hormone), working in concert to promote and ensure our mammalian sense of security, which evolution has developed quite highly in our species through--as you say--the laws governing the motions of the cosmos. Back before science and books, wasn't religion the only way to transmit culture, respect, honor, and hope? If you search and have a chance to see Paul Zak talk about his research, and the 1% of people who seem to be immune to oxytocin's effects ("the bastards"), it is worth the time to spend on a video link. ~

It's because we are mammals. Yes, there is a big genetic part to all of this. The social aspects are certainly true (noted above), and much more complexity develops in a society (vs. just a family); but all mammals have brains oriented to care about something. If you google the term, "mirror neurons" ...alone (with the quotes), or with any of a number of behaviour-related terms, I'm sure you'll find it interestering and enlightening.

Agreed, but it makes a little more sense than not improving efficiency of spending.... But in general I'd say that reducing population follows naturally when people enjoy food security and socioeconomic security, especially when that security is appreciated from an educated and healthy background. Population growth rates can even fall below replacement value when those "security" conditions are achieved; though if the system is not predicated upon "growth" to sustain itself, then that won't be a problem as it currently is. The idea is about living in a way that replenishes our carbon footprint through development, rather than enlarging our footprint through growth. This post: http://www.sciencefo...512#entry654512 ...by jimmydasaint, contains a link to an article about an economist E. F. Schumacher, who wrote "Small is Beautiful" back in the 1970's http://www.guardian....small-beautiful ...now, with the internet, that is so much more possible....That is the type of system (with "lots of small, autonomous units"), which I was trying to indicate when I mentioned "distributed" and "coordinated" in my first post above. ~

Thanks; it was a hard idea to put into words, but your description captures what I was shooting for.... I'm not sure whether to read "detached knowledge" as lacking, or objective, or subjective, or other sort of knowledge; but whichever it is, I also don't see how this would be, or to what it would be, counterproductive. But re: the OP, I think science is a good tool for understanding the material world, but science is not a good ideology (or -ism) on which to base critiques of philosophy or religion/spirituality. I'd also think that confusing science with scientism, as well as confusing spirituality with religion, leads to more misunderstandings than the perceived dichotomy in worldviews actually warrants. ~imho )

Again, this isn't a "transient quick fix," but rather a way to begin paying back the debt and restoring original and natural, productive, functioning of the soil systems. It is more a case of "new, more complete, knowledge" about ecosystem dynamics and functioning, which should allow us to avoid common mistakes from the past, rather than some new invention such as genetic modification. As the link above mentioned in: How to Make the Food System More Energy Efficient "Changes in agriculture, policy and personal behaviors can..." have effects on our future; and these are not new quick techno fixes. They are about behaviours and policies, and fundamental changes to the way we live and what we value. I think that would be preferable to either the orderly or indifferent, drastic population reduction that is our other option. ~ p.s. I'd also note that even if we could magically reduce population to half or a quarter of current levels, our current systems would still run us off an ecological cliff fairly soon. It is our ways, not our numbers, which need to change if we are to avoid the cliff. In fact, if we change our ways, then a greater number of people helping will make the restoration (paying back the debt) occur faster. Later we can let population equilibrate, when we are no longer dependent upon "growth" to sustain our civilization.

...Yes, we can't continue on this path, nor go back.... Right, all you speak to is true; and the odds are that we will follow the pattern of local and regional civilizations, now that we operate as a global civilization. However... There is a small chance of moving into the future, without following that boom-n-bust pattern. There is another way. We struggled through fits and starts for a long time, trying to make agriculture work well enough to support our civilizations. Markets evolved out of this, and eventually we hit upon Nature's credit card, petroleum, so that we could ramp up agriculture with stored energy. And incurring increasing debt should not become a routine way of life. Similar to what you noted: For millennia we struggled to transcend Nature with our Agriculture, and we were limited. Recently we transcended natural limits (but not Nature) by tricking the natural flows of nutrients and energy, and for a generation we were not limited. We've about reached out "credit" limit with that strategy, and now the debt is coming due. === All true, but there is another way. As E. O. Wilson suggests, rather than strive to transcend Nature, we should aspire to be as good as Nature. Recent discoveries (as in new paradigms emerging over the past decade), regarding carbon-cycle dynamics, suggest new avenues to pursue Agriculture--which would double productivity while simultaneously reducing and/or reversing environment damage. There are options to move forward sustainably, without relying upon fossilized energy or back-breaking labor. === This is based on a new understanding of ecosystem balance; realizing that, as an ecosystem component, soil is as fundamental as air, water, or sunlight. Through evolution, biology became an increasingly important player in the feedbacks of earth's systems, and soils came to predominate as a biological factor; especially when the "largest creature on Earth" (called Temperate Soil) evolved over just the past 50 million years. This new understanding provides us with the ability to more effectively manage ecosystem balance by restoring the healthy natural functions of temperate soils (being "as good as Nature," so to speak), which also increases productivity; so it's a win/win/win situation. If you count in the new industries and careers involved, it is a win/win/win/win situation. This new knowledge is not one of those "technological pipe dreams;" though current technology does make the application of this new option possible, as well as much less labor and resource intensive than the agricultural models from 100 years ago. It is more of a behavioural "fix," which equally may be a "pipe dream," but there is also that option for our future. === If we can apply this new "ecological knowledge," then: "...fundamental changes in cultural values and human societies...." offer us an option forward into a sustainable symbiosis with Nature. ...Or we will repeat the patterns of previous civilizations, not learning from history, and go down one of those "orderly" or "indifferent" pathways you describe. The odds aren't good, but there is a small chance to win; however, as Foley suggests... "There is no time to lose." ~

Maybe a non-physical entity couldn't interact with the physical; but if it generated the physical, then it could enjoy the perception of what it beholds. === At the risk of confusing consciousness with self-consciousness.... Our 4 dimensional reality (matter/energy in spacetime) seems to be derived from a higher dimensional "immaterial" reality. So perhaps consciousness could exist there, "elsewhere," before material existence. Our 4 dimensions may just be the expression of the consciousness within those "higher" dimensions. Or perhaps consciousness is one of those higher dimensions, or an emergent property of those 8 (or 11?) fundamental (those "higher") dimensions ...of string theories. === So consciousness could generate matter/energy, so that then self-consciousness could emerge as a phenomenon to behold the beholder. [...or "if/then" words to that effect] ~