[Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic

Fri Dec 9 05:50:00 CET 2016

Cari Joseph, Arturo e tutti,
sto seguendo come meglio posso e so la discussione che si sta svolgendo. Mi
sembra una grande e intrigata foresta che si affronta intellettualmente,
mentalmente ed epistemologicamente passando da un approccio riduzionistico
(fisica classica) ad un approccio olistico (sistemi bio-eco-dinamici) e
viceversa. Beninteso, io non sono nè un matematico o fisico nè un filosofo
o semio-socio-logico, quindi alcuni fati o idee della scienza della natura
e della scienza umana non li conosco. Tuttavia, adotto una visione
onto-epistemo-logica che mi consente di comprendere la realtà dell'economia
o l'economia della realtà. Cioè uso un paradigma metodo-logico concreto,
fattuale, possibile basato su una "logica in realtà" (Lir simile a quella
di Lupasco-Brenner) che mi ha consentito di ri-elaborare, ri-comprendere e
ri-significare la scienza economica proponendo una "Nuova economia" di cui
evidenzio, tra i tanti, quattro punti fondamentali:
A.
-assume la dottrina dell'ESSERE della "Scienza della logica" di G. W. F.
Hegel fondata sul pensiero nella sua immediatezza, del concetto in quanto è
in sè e la dottrina dell'ESSENZA che studia il pensiero nella sua
riflessione o mediazione, cioè il concetto in quanto è per sé e dunque
aperto;
-la dottrina dell'ESSERE tratta delle categorie della quantità, qualità e
misura: i fatti della scienza o la scienza dei fatti non sono solo quantità
o qualità, ma quantità-qualitative o qualità-quantitative frutto o oggetto
della misura;
-dottrina dell'ESSERE e  dottrina dell'ESSENZA costituiscono per Hegel un
tutt'uno che egli chiama Logica "oggettiva" perchè  riferita alla realtà
che esiste indipendentemente dal soggetto che la pensa:
B.
-ritiene che la conoscenza della conoscenza abbia ineludibili fondamenti
biologici;
C.
-il pensiero economico svolge una indispensabile funzione di mediazione nel
campo dell'emo-ra-zionalità;
D.
-l'esistenza e la conoscenza (non solo economiche) sono basate su un
continuo processo di tras-in-form-azione avente come input e come output la
materia, l'energia e l'informazione e in-centrato sulla teoria del valore
consistente nel triangolo dei tre surplus:termodinamico o naturale,
eco-biologico, semiotico-ermeneutico.
Spero di essere stato utile, sempre pronto ad accogliere correzioni,
critiche e suggerimenti per i quali vi anticipo un grazie di cuore e un
augurio natalizio.
Francesco


2016-12-08 10:56 GMT+01:00 Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>:

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Joseph Brenner <joe.brenner at bluewin.ch>
> *To:* fis <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> *Cc:* tozziarturo at libero.it
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 3:15 PM
> *Subject:* Fw: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an
> Euclidean n-space ??? Logic
>
> 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 <fis at listas.unizar.es>
> *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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=jerry_lr_chandler@icloud.com>>
> Data: 05/12/2016 0.50
> A: "fis"<fis at listas.unizar.es
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=fis@listas.unizar.es>>
> Cc: <tozziarturo at libero.it
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=tozziarturo@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3atozziarturo@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3amarkov@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
> <https://e-aj.my.com/compose/?mailto=mailto%3aFis@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/20161209/d409d4b0/attachment.html>