Re: [Fis] Fwd: about consciousness an Euclidean n-space

[John Collier]

Some remarks on Arturo’s comment below.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier


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-Fraenkels.
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.

[John Collier] I believe the problems here can be resolved by adopting an 
information-theoretic account of causality. I have not yet shown how it applies 
in QM or in complexly organised systems, but I see no special problems. The 
basic idea is that causal connection between two things is that the same 
information is carried by both. It is a development of Reichenbach’s 
markability account of causation, but without the questionable invocation of 
counterfactuals. You can find accounts in the two papers below. The second 
gives a brief account of how it should be applied to complexly organized 
systems. The papers are very condensed, I warn readers, but several people have 
got the idea on the first read. The second paper uses the Barwise-Seligman 
notion of information flow explicitly. It helps to know that first, but I give 
a brief description.

  *   Causation is the Transfer of 
Information In Howard Sankey (ed) 
Causation, Natural Laws and Explanation (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999)

  *   Information, causation and 
computation 
(2012. Information and 
Computation: 
Essays on Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Foundations of 
Information and Computation, Ed by Gordana Dodig Crnkovic and Mark Burgin, 
World Scientific)

John
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] Fwd: about consciousness an Euclidean n-space

[tozziarturo]

 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" <