-------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- Da: James Peters james.pete...@umanitoba.ca A: tozziart...@libero.it Cc: James Peters james.pete...@umanitoba.ca Data: mercoledì, 07 dicembre 2016, 01:37PM +01:00 Oggetto: about consciousness an Euclidean n-space
>Dear Arturo and All in this great discusssion, >Good morning from a snowy corner of our local Manitoba neighbourhood. During >the >past 24 hours, more than 30 cm of snow have fallen from the sky. During most >of the >time that the snow was falling to the ground, we had fairly high wind. In >effect, we had >a minor blizzard, here. The result is an incredible display of snow shapes. > >The passage of the swirling snow flakes during our blizzard is analogous to >what Hermann >Weyl calls a world canal. A system of particles moving through space sweep >out a world >canal (H. Weyl, Space. Time. Matter [Raum. Zeit. Materie], 1917, pp. >268-269). In addition >to the geometry for this spacetime structure, Weyl gives his perceptive >description of the >history of a system of moving particles. His mathematics is intensive and >his evocation of >a perception of this spacetime structure is equally intensive. And the >history of swirling snowflakes >during their passage from the overhead sky to the ground is analogous to >Weyl's peception >of a world canal. > >My suggestion for moving this discussion forward is to couple epistemological >constructs with >spacetime (physical) constructs. That will help ground our discussion of >natural phenomena >and human perceptions. > >Best, >Jim > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ >James F. Peters, Professor >Computational Intelligence Laboratory, ECE Department >Room E2-390 EITC Complex, 75 Chancellor's Circle >University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V6 Canada >Office: 204 474 9603 Fax: 204 261 4639 >email: james.pete...@ad.umanitoba.ca >https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Peters/?ev=hdr_xprf >________________________________________ >From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of tozziart...@libero.it >[tozziart...@libero.it] >Sent: December 6, 2016 4:17 AM >To: Jerry LR Chandler; fis@listas.unizar.es >Subject: [Fis] R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space >??? > >Dear Jerry, >thanks a lot for your interesting comments. >I like very much the logical approach, a topic that is generally dispised by >scientists for its intrinsic difficulty. >We also published something about logic and brain (currently under review), >therefore we keep it in high consideration: >http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/11/15/087874 > >However, there is a severe problem that prevents logic in order to be useful >in the description of scientific theories, explanans/explanandum, and so on. >The severe problem has been raised by three foremost discoveries in the last >century: quantum entanglement, nonlinear dynamics and quantistic vacuum. >Quantum entanglement, although experimentally proofed by countless scientific >procedures, is against any common sense and any possibliity of logical >inquiry. The concepts of locality and of cause/effect disappear in front of >the puzzling phenomenon of quantum entanglement, which is intractable in terms >of logic, neither using the successful and advanced approaches of Lesniewski- >Tarski, nor Zermelo-Fraenkel's. >The same stands for nonlinear chaotic phenomena, widespread in nature, from >pile sands, to bird flocks and to brain function. When biforcations occur in >logistic plots and chaotic behaviours take place, the final systems' ouputs >are not anymore causally predictable. >Quantistic vacuum predicts particles or fields interactions occurring through >breaks in CPT symmetries: this means that, illogically, the arrow of the time >can be reverted (!!!!!) in quantistic systems. > >Therefore (and I'm sorry for that), the explanatory role of logic in >scientific theories is definitely lost. >Here we are talking about brain: pay attention, I'm not saying that the brain >function obeys to quantum behaviours (I do not agree with the accounts by, for >example, Roger Penrose or Vitiello/Freeman). I'm just saying that, because >basic phenomena underlying our physical and biological environment display >chaotic behaviours and quantistic mechanisms that go against logic, therefore >the logic, in general, cannot be anymore useful in the description of our >world. >I'm sad about that, but that's all. > >P.S.: A topological approach talks instead of projections and mappings from >one level to another, therefore it does not talk about causality or time and >displays a more general explanatory power. But this is another topic... > > > > > >Arturo Tozzi > >AA Professor Physics, University North Texas > >Pediatrician ASL Na2Nord, Italy > >Comput Intell Lab, University Manitoba > >http://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ > > >----Messaggio originale---- >Da: "Jerry LR Chandler" < jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com > >Data: 05/12/2016 0.50 >A: "fis"< fis@listas.unizar.es > >Cc: < tozziart...@libero.it > >Ogg: Re: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? > >FISers: > >This is just a short note to communicate about two matters of substantial >importance with respect to foundational issues. > >Several contributors to this list serve have proposed a relationship between >phenomena and biological structures / processes and mathematics. Perhaps of >greatest interest have been the informational assertions seeking to relate >mind / consciousness / brain to either traditional mathematical forms and/or >Shannon information theory (with barely a mention of either the semiotic or >empirical necessities). > >A common scientific flaw inhabits these several proposals. In my view, this >common flaw is the absence of the relationships between scientific causality >and mathematical symbols that are necessary to meet the logic of Lesniewski / >Tarski, that is, a method to valid the proposed methods of representations. >(Krassimir’s post touched these concerns lightly.) > >While it is possible to cite hundreds (if not thousands) of texts that seek to >relate scientific phenomenon with causality, one well-written account >addresses the logical relations between scientific laws and the antecedent >causes that generate consequences of importance for the study of the >information sciences. see: > >Studies in the Logic of Explanation > >Carl G. Hempel; Paul Oppenheim > >http://www.sfu.ca/~jillmc/Hempel%20and%20Oppenheim.pdf > > I would like to emphasis that scientific inquiry necessarily requires the use >of multiple symbol systems and hence intrinsically depends on the symbols used >to express scientific laws. > > >The second issue is relates to the various philosophical perspectives that are >related to information theory. >The web site > >http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bois-reymond/ > >present the views on numerous philosophers (see list below) AS WELL AS >critical perspectives from a physical viewpoint. > >If time permits, I will add to this post in the coming week. > >Cheers > >Jerry > >Philosophers > >Mortimer >Adler<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/adler/> >Rogers >Albritton<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/albritton/> >Alexander of >Aphrodisias<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/alexander/> >Samuel >Alexander<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/alexanders/> >William >Alston<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/alston/> >G.E.M.Anscombe<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/anscombe/> >Anselm<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/anselm/> >Louise >Antony<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/antony/> >Thomas >Aquinas<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aquinas/> >Aristotle<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/aristotle/> >David >Armstrong<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/armstrong/> >Harald >Atmanspacher<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/atmanspacher/> >Robert Audi<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/audi/> >Augustine<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/augustine/> >J.L.Austin<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/austin/> >A.J.Ayer<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ayer/> >Alexander >Bain<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bain/> >Mark >Balaguer<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/balaguer/> >Jeffrey >Barrett<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/barrett/> >William >Belsham<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/belsham/> >Henri >Bergson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bergson/> >Isaiah >Berlin<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/berlin/> >Bernard >Berofsky<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/berofsky/> >Robert >Bishop<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/bishop/> >Max Black<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/black/> >Susanne >Bobzien<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bobzien/> >Emil du >Bois-Reymond<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bois-reymond/> >Hilary Bok<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bok/> >Laurence >BonJour<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/bonjour/> >George >Boole<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/boole/> >Émile >Boutroux<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/boutroux/> >F.H.Bradley<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/bradley/> >C.D.Broad<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/broad/> >Michael >Burke<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/burke/> >C.A.Campbell<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/campbell/> >Joseph Keim >Campbell<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/campbellj/> >Rudolf >Carnap<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/carnap/> >Carneades<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/carneades/> >Ernst >Cassirer<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/cassirer/> >David >Chalmers<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chalmers/> >Roderick >Chisholm<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chisholm/> >Chrysippus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/chrysippus/> >Cicero<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/Cicero/> >Randolph >Clarke<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/clarke/> >Samuel >Clarke<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/clarkes/> >Anthony >Collins<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/collins/> >Antonella >Corradini<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/corradini/> >Diodorus >Cronus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/diodorus/> >Jonathan >Dancy<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dancy/> >Donald >Davidson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/davidson/> >Mario De >Caro<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/decaro/> >Democritus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/democritus/> >Daniel >Dennett<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dennett/> >Jacques >Derrida<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/derrida/> >René >Descartes<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/descartes/> >Richard >Double<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/double/> >Fred >Dretske<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/dretske/> >John Dupré<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/dupre/> >John >Earman<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/earman/> >Laura Waddell >Ekstrom<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ekstrom/> >Epictetus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/epictetus/> >Epicurus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/epicurus/> >Herbert >Feigl<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/feigl/> >John Martin >Fischer<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/fischer/> >Owen >Flanagan<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/flanagan/> >Luciano >Floridi<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/floridi/> >Philippa >Foot<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/foot/> >Alfred >Fouilleé<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/fouillee/> >Harry >Frankfurt<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/frankfurt/> >Richard L. >Franklin<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/franklin/> >Michael >Frede<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/frede/> >Gottlob >Frege<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/frege/> >Peter >Geach<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/geach/> >Edmund >Gettier<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/gettier/> >Carl Ginet<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ginet/> >Alvin >Goldman<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/goldman/> >Gorgias<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/gorgias/> >Nicholas St. John >Green<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/green/> >H.Paul >Grice<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/grice/> >Ian >Hacking<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hacking/> >Ishtiyaque >Haji<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/haji/> >Stuart >Hampshire<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hampshire/> >W.F.R.Hardie<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hardie/> >Sam >Harris<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/harris/> >William >Hasker<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hasker/> >R.M.Hare<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hare/> >Georg W.F. >Hegel<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hegel/> >Martin >Heidegger<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/heidegger/> >R.E.Hobart<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hobart/> >Thomas >Hobbes<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hobbes/> >David >Hodgson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hodgson/> >Shadsworth >Hodgson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hodgsons/> >Baron >d'Holbach<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/dholbach/> >Ted >Honderich<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/honderich/> >Pamela Huby<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/huby/> >David Hume<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/hume/> >Ferenc >Huoranszki<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/huoranszki/> >William >James<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/james/> >Lord Kames<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kames/> >Robert Kane<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kane/> >Immanuel >Kant<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kant/> >Tomis >Kapitan<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kapitan/> >Jaegwon Kim<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kim/> >William >King<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/king/> >Hilary >Kornblith<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/kornblith/> >Christine >Korsgaard<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/korsgaard/> >Saul >Kripke<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/kripke/> >Andrea >Lavazza<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lavazza/> >Keith >Lehrer<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lehrer/> >Gottfried >Leibniz<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/leibniz/> >Leucippus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/leucippus/> >Michael >Levin<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/levin/> >George Henry >Lewes<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/lewes/> >C.I.Lewis<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/lewis/> >David >Lewis<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lewis/> >Peter >Lipton<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lipton/> >John Locke<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/locke/> >Michael >Lockwood<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lockwood/> >E. Jonathan >Lowe<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lowe/> >John R. >Lucas<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lucas/> >Lucretius<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/lucretius/> >Ruth Barcan >Marcus<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/marcus/> >James >Martineau<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/martineau/> >Storrs >McCall<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mccall/> >Hugh >McCann<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mccann/> >Colin >McGinn<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mcginn/> >Michael >McKenna<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mckenna/> >Brian >McLaughlin<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mclaughlin/> >Paul E. >Meehl<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/meehl/> >Uwe >Meixner<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/meixner/> >Alfred Mele<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mele/> >Trenton >Merricks<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/merricks/> >John Stuart >Mill<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/mill/> >Dickinson >Miller<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/miller/> >G.E.Moore<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/moore/> >C. Lloyd >Morgan<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/morgan/> >Thomas >Nagel<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nagelt/> >Friedrich >Nietzsche<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nietzsche/> >John >Norton<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/norton/> >P.H.Nowell-Smith<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nowell-smith/> >Robert >Nozick<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/nozick/> >William of >Ockham<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ockham/> >Timothy >O'Connor<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/oconnor/> >David F. >Pears<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/pears/> >Charles Sanders >Peirce<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/peirce/> >Derk >Pereboom<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/pereboom/> >Steven >Pinker<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/pinker/> >Plato<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/plato/> >Karl >Popper<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/popper/> >Porphyry<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/porphyry/> >Huw Price<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/price/> >H.A.Prichard<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/prichard/> >Hilary >Putnam<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/putnam/> >Willard van Orman >Quine<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/quine/> >Frank >Ramsey<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/knowledge/philosophers/ramsey/> >Ayn Rand<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rand/> >Michael Rea<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rea/> >Thomas Reid<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/reid/> >Charles >Renouvier<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/renouvier/> >Nicholas >Rescher<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rescher/> >C.W.Rietdijk<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rietdijk/> >Richard >Rorty<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/rorty/> >Josiah >Royce<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/royce/> >Bertrand >Russell<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/russell/> >Paul >Russell<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/russellp/> >Gilbert >Ryle<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ryle/> >Jean-Paul >Sartre<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sartre/> >Kenneth >Sayre<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sayre/> >T.M.Scanlon<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/scanlon/> >Moritz >Schlick<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/schlick/> >Arthur >Schopenhauer<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/schopenhauer/> >John >Searle<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/searle/> >Wilfrid >Sellars<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sellars/> >Alan >Sidelle<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sidelle/> >Ted Sider<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sider/> >Henry >Sidgwick<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sidgwick/> >Walter >Sinnott-Armstrong<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/sinnott-armstrong/> >J.J.C.Smart<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/smart/> >Saul >Smilansky<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/smilansky/> >Michael >Smith<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/smith/> >Baruch >Spinoza<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/spinoza/> >L. Susan >Stebbing<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/stebbing/> >George F. >Stout<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/stout/> >Galen >Strawson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawsong/> >Peter >Strawson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/strawson/> >Eleonore >Stump<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/stump/> >Francisco >Suárez<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/suarez/> >Richard >Taylor<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/taylorr/> >Kevin >Timpe<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/timpe/> >Mark Twain<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/twain/> >Peter >Unger<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/unger/> >Peter van >Inwagen<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vaninwagen/> >Manuel >Vargas<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vargas/> >John Venn<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/venn/> >Kadri >Vihvelin<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vihvelin/> >Voltaire<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/voltaire/> >G.H. von >Wright<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/vonwright/> >David Foster >Wallace<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wallacedf/> >R. Jay >Wallace<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wallace/> >W.G.Ward<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/ward/> >Ted >Warfield<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/warfield/> >Roy >Weatherford<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/weatherford/> >William >Whewell<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/whewell/> >Alfred North >Whitehead<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/whitehead/> >David >Widerker<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/widerker/> >David >Wiggins<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wiggins/> >Bernard >Williams<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/williams/> >Timothy >Williamson<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/williamson/> >Ludwig >Wittgenstein<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wittgenstein/> >Susan Wolf<http://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/philosophers/wolf/> > >Scientists > > > >On Nov 26, 2016, at 12:06 PM, tozziart...@libero.it<mailto: >tozziart...@libero.it > wrote: > > >Dear Krassimir, >Thanks a lot for your question, now the discussion will become hotter! > >First of all, we never stated that consciousness lies either on a n-sphere or >on an Euclidean n-space. >Indeed, in our framework, consciousness IS the continuous function. >Such function stands for a gauge field that restores the brain symmetries, >broken by sensations. >Concerning brain and gauge fields, see my PLOS biology paper: >http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1002400 > >When consciousness lacks, the inter-dimensional projections are broken, and >the nervous higher functions temporarily disappear. > >Concerning the question about which are the manifolds where brain functions >lie, it does not matter whether they are spheres, or circles, or concave, or >flat structures: we demonstrated that the BUT is valid not just for convex >manifolds, but for all the kinds of manifolds. >See our: >http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jnr.23720/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage > = > >Therefore, even if you think that brain and biological functions are >trajectories moving on concave structures towards lesser energetic levels, as >suggested by, e.g., Fokker-Planck equations, it does not matter: you may >always find the antipodal points with matching description predicted by BUT. > >Ciao! > >-- >Inviato da Libero Mail per Android > >sabato, 26 novembre 2016, 06:23PM +01:00 da Krassimir Markov >mar...@foibg.com<mailto: mar...@foibg.com >: > > >Dear FIS colleagues, > >I think, it is needed to put discussion on mathematical foundation. Let me >remember that: > > > >The Borsuk–Ulam theorem (BUT), states that every continuous function from an >n-sphere into Euclidean n-space maps some pair of antipodal points to the same >point. > >Here, two points on a sphere are called antipodal if they are in exactly >opposite directions from the sphere's center. > >Formally: if is continuous then there exists an such that: . > >[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borsuk%E2%80%93Ulam_theorem ] > > > >Who may proof that consciousness is a continuous function from reflected >reality ??? > >Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? > >After proving these statements we may think further. > > > >Yes, discussion is interesting but, I am afraid, it is not so scientific. > > > >Friendly regards > >Krassimir > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >Fis mailing list >Fis@listas.unizar.es >http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis >_______________________________________________ >Fis mailing list >Fis@listas.unizar.es<mailto: Fis@listas.unizar.es > >http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis > > >
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
