[Fis] Fw: Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic
Joseph Brenner
joe.brenner at bluewin.ch
Wed Dec 7 15:15:08 CET 2016
Dear Folks,
Arturo wrote:
"therefore logic, in general, cannot be anymore useful in the description of our world. I'm sad about that, but that's all."
The answer is to change logic from one of propositions (Lesniewski-Tarski) or mathematics (Zermelo-Fraenkel) to one of the states of real processes (Lupasco; Logic in Reality). Why this is not even considered as an option for serious discussion is a great mystery to me.
Arturo also said:
"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."
Here, I fully agree; Logic in Reality also does not apply to quantum phenomena. It is limited to description of processes involving thermodynamic change in which there is a mutual interaction between elements as individuals, including people. I do not claim it allows causal prediction, but logical inference.
Arturo:
"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."
Here, I agree with Arturo but for a different reason. The non-linear phenomena mentioned are too simple. In crowd behavior, individual interactions are absent or meaningless - information_as_data. Brain behavior of this kind is of lower complexity and interest, involving mostly lower level functionalities, although they they may accompany higher level cognitive functions.
I look forward to point by point refutation of or agreement with the above.
Best wishes,
Joseph
----- Original Message -----
From: tozziarturo at libero.it
To: fis
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:10 AM
Subject: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???
-------- Messaggio inoltrato -------- Da: tozziarturo at libero.it A: Jerry LR Chandler jerry_lr_chandler at icloud.com Data: martedì, 06 dicembre 2016, 11:17AM +01:00 Oggetto: R: Re: [Fis] 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_chandler at icloud.com>
Data: 05/12/2016 0.50
A: "fis"<fis at listas.unizar.es>
Cc: <tozziarturo at 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
Rogers Albritton
Alexander of Aphrodisias
Samuel Alexander
William Alston
G.E.M.Anscombe
Anselm
Louise Antony
Thomas Aquinas
Aristotle
David Armstrong
Harald Atmanspacher
Robert Audi
Augustine
J.L.Austin
A.J.Ayer
Alexander Bain
Mark Balaguer
Jeffrey Barrett
William Belsham
Henri Bergson
Isaiah Berlin
Bernard Berofsky
Robert Bishop
Max Black
Susanne Bobzien
Emil du Bois-Reymond
Hilary Bok
Laurence BonJour
George Boole
Émile Boutroux
F.H.Bradley
C.D.Broad
Michael Burke
C.A.Campbell
Joseph Keim Campbell
Rudolf Carnap
Carneades
Ernst Cassirer
David Chalmers
Roderick Chisholm
Chrysippus
Cicero
Randolph Clarke
Samuel Clarke
Anthony Collins
Antonella Corradini
Diodorus Cronus
Jonathan Dancy
Donald Davidson
Mario De Caro
Democritus
Daniel Dennett
Jacques Derrida
René Descartes
Richard Double
Fred Dretske
John Dupré
John Earman
Laura Waddell Ekstrom
Epictetus
Epicurus
Herbert Feigl
John Martin Fischer
Owen Flanagan
Luciano Floridi
Philippa Foot
Alfred Fouilleé
Harry Frankfurt
Richard L. Franklin
Michael Frede
Gottlob Frege
Peter Geach
Edmund Gettier
Carl Ginet
Alvin Goldman
Gorgias
Nicholas St. John Green
H.Paul Grice
Ian Hacking
Ishtiyaque Haji
Stuart Hampshire
W.F.R.Hardie
Sam Harris
William Hasker
R.M.Hare
Georg W.F. Hegel
Martin Heidegger
R.E.Hobart
Thomas Hobbes
David Hodgson
Shadsworth Hodgson
Baron d'Holbach
Ted Honderich
Pamela Huby
David Hume
Ferenc Huoranszki
William James
Lord Kames
Robert Kane
Immanuel Kant
Tomis Kapitan
Jaegwon Kim
William King
Hilary Kornblith
Christine Korsgaard
Saul Kripke
Andrea Lavazza
Keith Lehrer
Gottfried Leibniz
Leucippus
Michael Levin
George Henry Lewes
C.I.Lewis
David Lewis
Peter Lipton
John Locke
Michael Lockwood
E. Jonathan Lowe
John R. Lucas
Lucretius
Ruth Barcan Marcus
James Martineau
Storrs McCall
Hugh McCann
Colin McGinn
Michael McKenna
Brian McLaughlin
Paul E. Meehl
Uwe Meixner
Alfred Mele
Trenton Merricks
John Stuart Mill
Dickinson Miller
G.E.Moore
C. Lloyd Morgan
Thomas Nagel
Friedrich Nietzsche
John Norton
P.H.Nowell-Smith
Robert Nozick
William of Ockham
Timothy O'Connor
David F. Pears
Charles Sanders Peirce
Derk Pereboom
Steven Pinker
Plato
Karl Popper
Porphyry
Huw Price
H.A.Prichard
Hilary Putnam
Willard van Orman Quine
Frank Ramsey
Ayn Rand
Michael Rea
Thomas Reid
Charles Renouvier
Nicholas Rescher
C.W.Rietdijk
Richard Rorty
Josiah Royce
Bertrand Russell
Paul Russell
Gilbert Ryle
Jean-Paul Sartre
Kenneth Sayre
T.M.Scanlon
Moritz Schlick
Arthur Schopenhauer
John Searle
Wilfrid Sellars
Alan Sidelle
Ted Sider
Henry Sidgwick
Walter Sinnott-Armstrong
J.J.C.Smart
Saul Smilansky
Michael Smith
Baruch Spinoza
L. Susan Stebbing
George F. Stout
Galen Strawson
Peter Strawson
Eleonore Stump
Francisco Suárez
Richard Taylor
Kevin Timpe
Mark Twain
Peter Unger
Peter van Inwagen
Manuel Vargas
John Venn
Kadri Vihvelin
Voltaire
G.H. von Wright
David Foster Wallace
R. Jay Wallace
W.G.Ward
Ted Warfield
Roy Weatherford
William Whewell
Alfred North Whitehead
David Widerker
David Wiggins
Bernard Williams
Timothy Williamson
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Susan Wolf
Scientists
On Nov 26, 2016, at 12:06 PM, tozziarturo at 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 markov at 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 at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Fis mailing list
Fis at listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listas.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/attachments/20161207/3e0d8094/attachment.html>
More information about the Fis
mailing list