Re: [Fis] Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???

[Alex Hankey]

Dear Colleagues,

The nature of the 'space of consciousness' was made implicitly clear in my
presentation in April.
But you have not defined whether you are talking of the space of
'consciousnesses' or only
the space of their contents.

Nor whether the contents are limited to facts, ideas, or understandings.
None of these are digital and you need to specify in detail.
I am happy to supply specific answers from my model on request.

All good wishes,

Alex


On 27 November 2016 at 01:35, Joseph Brenner  wrote:

> Dear FISers,
>
> At the risk of attracting the anger of all the mathematicians in the
> group, I will agree with Arturo, *contra *Krassimir. For a
> non-mathematician like me, a description of complex dynamic processes such
> as consciousness and information can be partly mathematical but need not
> involve proofs and their reduced logic.
>
> The question I have is whether the field description is itself necessary
> and sufficient and if incomplete, what is missing. Perhaps it is my
> intuition that consciousness is both continuous and discontinuous, and so
> is its opposite, unconsciousness, which still involves high-level nervous
> functions. In my picture, antipodal points are of little relevance compared
> to the non-Euclidean multi-dimensionality of this dynamic opposition, moving
> between identity and diversity, presence and absence, clarity and
> vagueness, symmetry and dissymetry, within the same high overall energy
> level. In any case, perhaps we can agree that everything that is moving
> here is information!
>
> Thank you and best wishes,
>
> Joseph
>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* tozziart...@libero.it
> *To:* fis 
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 26, 2016 7:06 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [Fis] Who may prove that consciousness is an Euclidean
> n-space ???
>
> 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=
>
> 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
> mar...@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* f : *S n → R* n  *is* *continuous* then there exists an x
> ∈ S n  such that: f ( − x ) = f ( x ).
>
> [ 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@listas.unizar.es 
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
> --
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>


-- 
Alex Hankey M.A. (Cantab.) PhD (M.I.T.)
Distinguished Professor of Yoga and Physical Science,
SVYASA, Eknath Bhavan, 19 Gavipuram Circle

[Fis] I: Response to Karl Javorszky

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Karl, 
Thanks for your wise
comments.  
 
You wrote: "The session so far has raised the
points: meta-communication, subject-matter, order, spaces.
a.) Meta-communication
Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references
that FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the
equivalence between energy and information or the concept of space in the human
brain. Whatever the personal background, interests or intellectual creations of
the members of FIS, we each have been taught addition, multiplication, division
and the like. We also know how to read a map and remember well where we had put
a thing as we are going to retrieve it. When discussing the intricate,
philosophical points which are common to all formulations of this session, it
may be helpful to use such words and procedures that are well-known to each one
of us, while describing what we do while we use topology".
I agree with you.  I will try to follow this rule.  …however, read my response 
to your fourth
point…  
 
b.)Subject-matter
Topology is managed by much older structures of the central
nervous system than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas. Animals
and small children remember their way to food and other attractions. Children
discover and use topology far before they can count. Topology is a primitive
ancestor to mathematics; its ideas and methods are archaic and may appear as
lacking in refinement and intelligence.
This time, of course, I cannot
agree.  Topology is not a primitive
ancestor that stands just for the older 
brain structures, and is not tenable that children discover topology far
before  they can do other activities: nobody
knows that, and the literature is controversial.  Rather, topology is a sort of 
meta-scientific
tool: because its abstractness  and ability
to describe very general features of structures and objects, it allows the 
assessment
of almost all the physical and biological phenomena.  The trick is just to find 
the proper way to
transfer such matematical concepts from an abstract phase space to a real,
experimentally assessable one, the one where biological/physical activities
take place.  
Look at my very brief movie on Youtube (just one minute!): 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxfqraR1bIg
If you change the described 2D circle and the 3D sphere with other structures 
(for example, the 2D flattened cortex and the 3D whole brain), the trick is 
easier to understand.   
Therefore, topology is able
to give novel insights in countless contexts, from pre-Big Bang scenarios, to
quantum entanglement, from biological gauge fields, to semantics, and, of
course, to brain activity.  The standpoint
of topology, e.g., mappings and projections between levels equipped with
different dimensions (either spatial, or temporal, or abstract dimensions), is
a tenet that can be used in the assessment of every scientific activity.  


c.) Order
There is no need to discuss whether Nature is well-ordered or not.
Our brain is surely extremely well ordered, otherwise we had seizures, tics,
disintegrative features. In discussing topology we can make use of the
condition that everything we investigate is extremely well ordered. We may not
be able to understand Nature, but we may get an idea about how our brain
functions, in its capacity as an extremely well ordered system. We can make a
half-step towards modelling artificial intelligence by understanding at first,
how artificial instincts, and their conflicts, can be modelled. Animals
apparently utilise a different layer of reality of the world while building up
their orientation in it to that which humans perceive as important. The path of
understanding how primitive instincts work begins with a half-step of dumbing
down. It is no more interesting, how many they are, now we only look at where
it is relative to how it appears, compared with the others.  
The differences in complexity and
in building up of perceptions in different animals can be easily framed in a
topological context that explains them in terms of different (functional, not
spatial!) dimensions.  The higher the
number of dimensions, the higher the complexity and the stored
information.  Primitive istincts, in a
topological framework, are not very different from higher brain activities: the
only difference lies in the dimension we are evaluating them.  We 
"anthropocentrically" take into account just
the dimensions we prefer: therefore, looking by a given level, we believe that
the others are less interesting.  It is
not true: all the levels display the same content, even if with different 
“quantity”
of information.  We see things from our
standpoint (we can say: from a single topological dimension).  

d.)Spaces
Out of sequences, planes naturally evolve. Whether out of the
planes spaces can be constructed, depends on the kinds of planes and of common
axes. Now the natural numbers come in handy, as we can demonstrate to each
other on natural 

[Fis] Response to Jerry LR Chandler

[tozziarturo]

--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android  Messaggio inoltrato 
Da:  tozziart...@libero.it A:  pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es Data: mercoledì, 30 
novembre 2016, 09:52AM +01:00
Oggetto: Response to Jerry LR Chandler

>
>>Dear Pedro, 
>>here you are!
>>I tried 4 times to submit this comment.  
>>Ciao, and thanks!
>>>

>Dear Jerry,
>Thanks for
the intriguing questions!
>I thank our guest,
Pedro Marijuan, for giving us the
opportunity to talk with such high-ranked scientists.  
> 
> Let’s start!
>The questions raised in this post are highly
provocative.  From the perspective of physical phenomenology, it is
necessary to identify corresponding illations between the electric fields of
brain dynamics (such as EEG patterns) and the mathematics of electric fields /
electro-magnetism.  It goes without
saying that such correspondences must associate the measured quantities with
the theoretical quantities.  In other words, the units of measurements of
“brain activity" should be associated with Maxwell’s equations.
> 
>Are we
really sure that this proposition is true?  How does
central nervous system process information? Current theories are based on two
tenets: (a) information is transmitted by action potentials, the language by
which neurons communicate with each other—and (b) homogeneous neuronal
assemblies of cortical circuits operate on these neuronal messages where the
operations are characterized by the intrinsic connectivity among neuronal
populations. In this view, the size and time course of any spike is stereotypic
and the information is restricted to the temporal sequence of the spikes;
namely, the “neural code”. However, an increasing amount of novel data point
towards an alternative hypothesis: (a) the role of neural code in information
processing is overemphasized. Instead of simply passing messages, action 
potentials
play a role in dynamic coordination at multiple spatial and temporal scales,
establishing network interactions across several levels of a hierarchical
modular architecture, modulating and regulating the propagation of neuronal
messages. (b) Information is processed at all levels of neuronal infrastructure
from macromolecules to population dynamics. For example, intra-neuronal
(changes in protein conformation, concentration and synthesis) and
extra-neuronal factors (extracellular proteolysis, substrate patterning, myelin
plasticity, microbes, metabolic status) can have a profound effect on neuronal
computations. This means molecular message passing may have cognitive
connotations. This essay introduces the concept of “supramolecular chemistry”,
involving the storage of information at the molecular level and its retrieval,
transfer and processing at the supramolecular level, through transitory
non-covalent molecular processes that are self-organized, self-assembled and
dynamic. Finally, we note that the cortex comprises extremely heterogeneous
cells, with distinct regional variations, macromolecular assembly, receptor
repertoire and intrinsic microcircuitry. This suggests that every neuron (or
group of neurons) embodies different molecular information that hands an
operational effect on neuronal computation.
>For further
details, see: 
>http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11571-015-9337-1
> 
> In the philosophy of science, this is the basic
distinction between traditional mathematical narratives as pure abstractions
and APPLIED mathematical theories of explanations of scientific facts.  
> 
>Pursuing Quine’s
naturalized epistemology, we are aware that we need to make testable
previsions, in order to “link” mathematical theories with explanations of
scientific facts.  This is exactly what
we (try to) do. 
>The best
example is the following, that shows how a novel approach might lead to
unpredictable testable results: 
>Current
advances in neurosciences deal with the functional architecture of the central
nervous system, paving the way for general theories that improve our
understanding of brain activity. From topology, a strong concept comes into
play in understanding brain functions, namely, the 4D space of a “hypersphere’s
torus”, undetectable by observers living in a 3D world. The torus may be 
compared
with a video game with biplanes in aerial combat: when a biplane flies off one
edge of gaming display, it does not crash but rather it comes back from the
opposite edge of the screen. Our thoughts exhibit similar behaviour, i.e. the
unique ability to connect past, present and future events in a single, coherent
picture as if we were allowed to watch the three screens of past-present-future
“glued” together in a mental kaleidoscope. Here we hypothesize that brain
functions are embedded in a imperceptible fourth spatial dimension and propose
a method to empirically assess its presence. Neuroimaging fMRI series can be
evaluated, looking for the topological hallmark of the presence of a fourth
dimension. Indeed, 

[Fis] Fwd: Response to Jerry LR Chandler (From Arturo Tozzi)

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

(sorry, the problems continue, seemingly, and I have to re-enter the 
messages--Pedro)

---

Dear Jerry,

Thanks for the intriguing questions!

I thank our guest, Pedro Marijuan, for giving us the opportunity to talk 
with such high-ranked scientists.


 Let’s start!

/The questions raised in this post are highly provocative.  From the 
perspective of physical phenomenology, it is necessary to identify 
corresponding illations between the electric fields of brain dynamics 
(such as EEG patterns) and the mathematics of electric fields / 
electro-magnetism.  It goes without saying that such correspondences 
must associate the measured quantities with the theoretical quantities. 
 In other words, the units of measurements of “brain activity" should 
be associated with Maxwell’s equations./


Are we really sure that this proposition is true? How does central 
nervous system process information? Current theories are based on two 
tenets: (a) information is transmitted by action potentials, the 
language by which neurons communicate with each other—and (b) 
homogeneous neuronal assemblies of cortical circuits operate on these 
neuronal messages where the operations are characterized by the 
intrinsic connectivity among neuronal populations. In this view, the 
size and time course of any spike is stereotypic and the information is 
restricted to the temporal sequence of the spikes; namely, the “neural 
code”. However, an increasing amount of novel data point towards an 
alternative hypothesis: (a) the role of neural code in information 
processing is overemphasized. Instead of simply passing messages, action 
potentials play a role in dynamic coordination at multiple spatial and 
temporal scales, establishing network interactions across several levels 
of a hierarchical modular architecture, modulating and regulating the 
propagation of neuronal messages. (b) Information is processed at all 
levels of neuronal infrastructure from macromolecules to population 
dynamics. For example, intra-neuronal (changes in protein conformation, 
concentration and synthesis) and extra-neuronal factors (extracellular 
proteolysis, substrate patterning, myelin plasticity, microbes, 
metabolic status) can have a profound effect on neuronal computations. 
This means molecular message passing may have cognitive connotations. 
This essay introduces the concept of “supramolecular chemistry”, 
involving the storage of information at the molecular level and its 
retrieval, transfer and processing at the supramolecular level, through 
transitory non-covalent molecular processes that are self-organized, 
self-assembled and dynamic. Finally, we note that the cortex comprises 
extremely heterogeneous cells, with distinct regional variations, 
macromolecular assembly, receptor repertoire and intrinsic 
microcircuitry. This suggests that every neuron (or group of neurons) 
embodies different molecular information that hands an operational 
effect on neuronal computation.


For further details, see:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11571-015-9337-1

/ In the philosophy of science, this is the basic distinction between 
traditional mathematical narratives as pure abstractions and APPLIED 
mathematical theories of explanations of scientific facts. /


Pursuing Quine’s naturalized epistemology, we are aware that we need to 
make testable previsions, in order to “link” mathematical theories with 
explanations of scientific facts.  This is exactly what we (try to) do.


The best example is the following, that shows how a novel approach might 
lead to unpredictable testable results:


Current advances in neurosciences deal with the functional architecture 
of the central nervous system, paving the way for general theories that 
improve our understanding of brain activity. From topology, a strong 
concept comes into play in understanding brain functions, namely, the 4D 
space of a “hypersphere’s torus”, undetectable by observers living in a 
3D world. The torus may be compared with a video game with biplanes in 
aerial combat: when a biplane flies off one edge of gaming display, it 
does not crash but rather it comes back from the opposite edge of the 
screen. Our thoughts exhibit similar behaviour, i.e. the unique ability 
to connect past, present and future events in a single, coherent picture 
as if we were allowed to watch the three screens of past-present-future 
“glued” together in a mental kaleidoscope. Here we hypothesize that 
brain functions are embedded in a imperceptible fourth spatial dimension 
and propose a method to empirically assess its presence. Neuroimaging 
fMRI series can be evaluated, looking for the topological hallmark of 
the presence of a fourth dimension. Indeed, there is a typical feature 
which reveal the existence of a functional hypersphere: the simultaneous 
activation of areas opposite 

[Fis] Fwd: NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN (From Karl Javorszky)

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Asunto: [Fis] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN
Fecha:  Wed, 30 Nov 2016 08:46:32 +0100
De: Karl Javorszky 
Responder a:karl.javors...@gmail.com
Para:   fis 
CC: Pedro C. Marijuan , tozziart...@libero.it



Topology

The session so far has raised the points: meta-communication, 
subject-matter, order, spaces.


a.) Meta-communication

Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references 
that FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the 
equivalence between energy and information or the concept of space in 
the human brain. Whatever the personal background, interests or 
intellectual creations of the members of FIS, we each have been taught 
addition, multiplication, division and the like. We also know how to 
read a map and remember well where we had put a thing as we are going to 
retrieve it. When discussing the intricate, philosophical points which 
are common to all formulations of this session, it may be helpful to use 
such words and procedures that are well-known to each one of us, while 
describing what we do while we use topology.


b.)Subject-matter

Topology is managed by much older structures of the central nervous 
system than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas. Animals 
and small children remember their way to food and other attractions. 
Children discover and use topology far before they can count. Topology 
is a primitive ancestor to mathematics; its ideas and methods are 
archaic and may appear as lacking in refinement and intelligence.


c.) Order

There is no need to discuss whether Nature is well-ordered or not. Our 
brain is surely extremely well ordered, otherwise we had seizures, tics, 
disintegrative features. In discussing topology we can make use of the 
condition that everything we investigate is extremely well ordered. We 
may not be able to understand Nature, but we may get an idea about how 
our brain functions, in its capacity as an extremely well ordered 
system. We can make a half-step towards modelling artificial 
intelligence by understanding at first, how artificial instincts, and 
their conflicts, can be modelled. Animals apparently utilise a different 
layer of reality of the world while building up their orientation in it 
to that which humans perceive as important. The path of understanding 
how primitive instincts work begins with a half-step of dumbing down. It 
is no more interesting, how many they are, now we only look at where it 
is relative to how it appears, compared with the others.


d.)Spaces

Out of sequences, planes naturally evolve. Whether out of the planes 
spaces can be constructed, depends on the kinds of planes and of common 
axes. Now the natural numbers come in handy, as we can demonstrate to 
each other on natural numbers, how in a well-ordered collection the 
actual mechanism of place changes creates by itself two rectangular, 
Euclidean, spaces. These can be merged into one common space, but in 
that, there are four variants of every certainty coming from the 
position within the sequence. Furthermore, all these spaces are 
transcended by two planes. The discussion about an oriented entity in a 
space of n dimensions can be given a frame, placed into a context that 
is neutral and shared as a common knowledge by all members of FIS.



2016. nov. 29. 15:15 ezt írta ("Karl Javorszky" 
>):


   Topology

   The session so far has raised the points: meta-communication,
   subject-matter, order, spaces.

   a.) Meta-communication

   Gordana’s summary explicates the need to have a system of references
   that FIS can use to discuss whatever it wishes to discuss, be it the
   equivalence between energy and information or the concept of space
   in the human brain. Whatever the personal background, interests or
   intellectual creations of the members of FIS, we each have been
   taught addition, multiplication, division and the like. We also know
   how to read a map and remember well where we had put a thing as we
   are going to retrieve it. When discussing the intricate,
   philosophical points which are common to all formulations of this
   session, it may be helpful to use such words and procedures that are
   well-known to each one of us, while describing what we do while we
   use topology.

   b.)Subject-matter

   Topology is managed by much older structures of the central nervous
   system than those that manage speech, counting, abstract ideas.
   Animals and small children remember their way to food and other
   attractions. Children discover and use topology far before they can
   count. Topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics; its ideas
   and methods are archaic and may appear as lacking in refinement and
   intelligence.

   c.) Order

   There is no need to discuss whether Nature is