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

[tozziarturo at libero.it]

-------- Messaggio inoltrato --------
Da: James Peters  James.Peters3 at umanitoba.ca A:  tozziarturo at libero.it Cc: James Peters  James.Peters3 at 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.peters3 at ad.umanitoba.ca
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Peters/?ev=hdr_xprf
>________________________________________
>From: Fis [fis-bounces at listas.unizar.es] on behalf of  tozziarturo at libero.it [tozziarturo at libero.it]
>Sent: December 6, 2016 4:17 AM
>To: Jerry LR Chandler;  fis at 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_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<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, tozziarturo at libero.it<mailto: 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<mailto: 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<mailto: 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/a62a45c7/attachment.html>