[Fis] about consciousness an Euclidean n-space

Fri Dec 9 15:58:17 CET 2016

For Aturo Tozzi -- Along the lines of your examples given here you may want
to add the unpredictable trajectories of energy dissipation pathways when,
as in most natural systems, there is more than a single pathway for energy
flows.
See, or example:
 Annila, A & Salthe, SN, 2012   On intractable tracks.   *Physics Essays.*
25: 233-238.

STAN

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, James Peters <James.Peters3 at umanitoba.ca>
wrote:

> 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:t
> ozziarturo 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20161209/2118505b/attachment.html>