As you say above: I also am interested in neuroscience and neuropsychology.

The physics aspect of, for want of a better phrase, "some of how we think", has been made more prominent by this recent research, Monkey's Pattern Recognition, a story worth reading, as a math algorithm has duplicated, at least to some degree, the process of neuron firing that the animal's brain went through.

Because of pure ignorance, I don't have any fixed ideas on conscious, if it exists, how it works, etc, etc...

Athough Max Tegmark in particular (along with Penrose) may be out of their field with some ideas, I wonder if discussing their approach to "reality", i.e. that we / the universe are fundamentally based around math, is asking too much of a physics based AMA?

As you say above: I also am interested in neuroscience and neuropsychology.

The physics aspect of, for want of a better phrase, "some of how we think", has been made more prominent by this recent research, Monkey's Pattern Recognition,

This, imo is a story worth reading, as a math algorithm has duplicated, at least to some degree, the process of neuron firing that the animal's brain went through.

Due to pure ignorance, I don't have any fixed ideas on conscious, if it exists, how it works, etc, etc...but it is an interest of mine, especially if I can use a physics or math based experimental results rather than philosophy.

So, my question is: although Max Tegmark (along with Penrose) may be out of their field with some of their ideas, I wonder if discussing their approach to "reality", i.e. that we / the universe are fundamentally based around math, is asking too much of a physics based AMA?