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

[Francesco Rizzo]

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 :

>
> - Original Message -
> *From:* Joseph Brenner 
> *To:* fis 
> *Cc:* tozziart...@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:* tozziart...@libero.it
> *To:* fis 
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:10 AM
> *Subject:* [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an
> Euclidean n-space ???
>
>  Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Jerry
> LR Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com Data: martedì, 06 dicembre 2016,
> 11:17AM +01:00 Oggetto: R: Re: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an
> 

[Fis] R: [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN

[tozziart...@libero.it]

Dear Karl, 

Your noteworthy account is a typical example of a well-built scientific
theory: by putting together different bricks from several influential sources
(Piaget, Gibson, dynamic systems theory), you create a solid, concrete building
that sounds very logic, and also in touch with common sense.  

However… sometimes it takes just a single, novel experimental data, in
order to destroy the pillars of the most perfect logical buildings.  Your 
account is false, because your premises do
not hold. 

You stated that: “The ability to be oriented in space predates the
ability to build abstract concepts. Animals remain at a level of intellectual
capacity that allows them to navigate their surroundings and match place and
quality attributes, that is: animals know how to match what and where. Children
acquire during maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the
perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that
represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the fingers of
the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start there.  What 
children and animals have and use before
they learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no
small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their position.
They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, entertaintment or
partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions determines the configuration
of a spatial map and furnishes it with objects, movables and stables, and the
position of the own perspective (the ego).   This archaic, instinctive, 
pre-mathematical
level of thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These
rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of Physics and
Chemistry, where life is possible.  The
rules are detectable, because they root in logic and reason.”

The problem is that… “Bees Can Count to Four, Display Emotions, and
Teach Each Other New Skills” (PLOS Biology 2016).  
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bees-can-count-to-four-display-emotions-and-teach-each-other-new-skills

 

Therefore, pay attention to the truth of logic explanations!

  

 
Arturo TozziAA Professor Physics, University North TexasPediatrician ASL 
Na2Nord, ItalyComput Intell Lab, University 
Manitobahttp://arturotozzi.webnode.it/ 





Messaggio originale

Da: "Karl Javorszky" 

Data: 06/12/2016 11.29

A: "fis"

Ogg: [Fis] [FIS] NEW DISCUSSION SESSION--TOPOLOGICAL BRAIN



Toposcopy
Thank you for the excellent 
discussion on a central issue of epistemology. The assertion that 
topology is a primitive ancestor to mathematics needs to be clarified.

The
 assertion maintains, that animals possess an ability of spatial 
orientation which they use intelligently. This ability is shown also by 
human children, e.g. as they play hide-and-seek. The child hiding 
considers the perspective from which the seeker will be seeing him, and 
hides behind something that obstructs the view from that angle. This 
shows that the child has a well-functioning set of algorithms which 
point out in a mental map his position and the path of the seeker. The 
child has a knowledge of places, in Greek "topos" and "logos", for 
"space" and "study".

As a parallel usage of the established
 word "topology" appears inconvenient, one may speak of "toposcopy" when
 watching the places of things. The child has a toposcopic knowledge of 
the world as it finds home from a discovery around the garden. This 
ability predates its ability to count. 

The ability to be 
oriented in space predates the ability to build abstract concepts. 
Animals remain at a level of intellectual capacity that allows them to 
navigate their surroundings and match place and quality attributes, that
 is: animals know how to match what and where. Children acquire during 
maturing the ability to recognise the idea of a thing behind the 
perception of the thing. Then they learn to distinguish among ideas that
 represent alike objects. The next step is to be able to assign the 
fingers of the hand to the ideas such distinguished. Mathematics start 
there.

What children and animals have and use before they 
learn to abstract into enumerable mental creations is a faculty of no 
small complexity. They create an inner map, in which they know their 
position. They also know the position of an attractor, be it food, 
entertaintment or partner. The toposcopic level of brain functions 
determines the configuration of a spatial map and furnishes it with 
objects, movables and stables, and the position of the own perspective 
(the ego). 

This archaic, instinctive, pre-mathematical level of 
thinking must have its rules, otherwise it would not function. These 
rules must be simple, self-evident and applicable in all fields of 
Physics and Chemistry, where life is possible.  The rules are 
detectable, because they root in logic and reason. The 

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

[tozziarturo]

 Messaggio inoltrato 
Da: James Peters  james.pete...@umanitoba.ca A:  tozziart...@libero.it Cc: 
James Peters  james.pete...@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.pete...@ad.umanitoba.ca
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/James_Peters/?ev=hdr_xprf
>
>From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of  tozziart...@libero.it 
>[tozziart...@libero.it]
>Sent: December 6, 2016 4:17 AM
>To: Jerry LR Chandler;  fis@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" < 

[Fis] Fw: Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ??? Logic

[Joseph Brenner]

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: tozziart...@libero.it 
To: fis 
Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2016 9:10 AM
Subject: [Fis] Fwd: R: Re: Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean 
n-space ???


 Messaggio inoltrato  Da: tozziart...@libero.it A: Jerry LR 
Chandler jerry_lr_chand...@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" 
Data: 05/12/2016 0.50
A: "fis"
Cc: 
Ogg: Re: [Fis] Who