Your insight is indeed impressive. You got the synopsis of my paper exactly right, namely the four basic assumptions, which I quote:
"1. Does Dark Matter exist? (Or is it a convenient way for cosmologists to account for what they observe?)
2. If yes, then is there a suitable medium (eg. superfluid, superconductor) for axions?
3. If yes, then could a Bose-Einstein Condensate exist in a habitable thermal range, like room temperature? (or is that impossible, almost by definition, since a BEC must be near absolute zero?)
4. If yes, then is there a suitable 'coupling theory' to transduce the baryonic physicality of human consciousness from these (non-baryonic) axionic waves?"
#1 is perhaps a safe assumption, as you have discussed so well in the above post
I feel comfortable with #2 and #3. I would however rewrite #2 to say that if #1 is true, are axions a principal component of dark matter? They are their own medium if they do exist. However, a recent Scientific American article on the constituents of Dark Matter did not even mention axions.
If #1 and #2 are true, then there are theoretical reasons to believe that axions form a BEC:
one being that from GUT theory, they exist, at least to begin with at absolute zero;
but perhaps a stronger reason is that they are so light (in mass) that they would form a BEC at room temperatures and perhaps even solar surface temperatures (i.e., that is if the inverse mass scaling temperature for BEC formation remains true at high temperatures).
So far I would venture that the highest risk of falseness is #2.
But #4 is by far the riskiness assumption. It requires brand new physics to be true. That is why I presented evidence for non-local consciousness first, which is the best evidence that #4 may be true, yet much of that evidence is subjective and the rest is marginally scientific.
By the way, the possible existence of non-local consciousness is the best answer to Dennett-type explanations of consciousness, which cannot possibly, I believe, explain non-local conciousness. I read with great interest this forum's debate on such consciousness.
The next scientific step is to verify #2. All efforts to date have not been able to detect axions, as explained in the paper. But the search has been based on a unverified theory of photon coupling and then conducted over a narrow mass range. Hopefully, we are not done with such searches. There seems to be enough scientist opinion for the existence of axions that there will be further efforts to detect axions.
#3 should follow from #2 (theoretically) once the properties of axions, if detected, are pinned down. Then I anticipate more attention to #4. However, the physics of #4 is somewhat like the various interpretations of quantum mechanics. They have become questions of philosophy rather than physics. #4 may forever remain in the realm of metaphysics.
I really appreciate your careful review of my 'survey' paper. [My paper is not a theory, but rather a collection of the experiments and theories of others plus some hypotheses that emerged once the collection was put together. I particularly like the Bohm-Bell aspects of #4 where I hypothesize what the coupling is between axions and electrons (read baryons). It explains everything but is the riskiest assumption of all.]
You have considered it with an open yet critical mind. It is by far the best review of the paper I have seen both here, at the meeting in Arizona and in subsequent emailings. Please continue the review as the spirit moves you. I may be emailed at firstname.lastname@example.org if you wish.
I might add that you are a wonderful addition to this forum.