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" <jerry_lr_chand...@icloud.com> Data: 05/12/2016 0.50 A: "fis"<fis@listas.unizar.es> Cc: <tozziart...@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 Rogers Albritton Alexander of Aphrodisias Samuel Alexander William Alston G.E.M.Anscombe Anselm Louise Antony Thomas Aquinas Aristotle David Armstrong Harald Atmanspacher Robert Audi Augustine J.L.Austin A.J.Ayer Alexander Bain Mark Balaguer Jeffrey Barrett William Belsham Henri Bergson Isaiah Berlin Bernard Berofsky Robert Bishop Max Black Susanne Bobzien Emil du Bois-Reymond Hilary Bok Laurence BonJour George Boole Émile Boutroux F.H.Bradley C.D.Broad Michael Burke C.A.Campbell Joseph Keim Campbell Rudolf Carnap Carneades Ernst Cassirer David Chalmers Roderick Chisholm Chrysippus Cicero Randolph Clarke Samuel Clarke Anthony Collins Antonella Corradini Diodorus Cronus Jonathan Dancy Donald Davidson Mario De Caro Democritus Daniel Dennett Jacques Derrida René Descartes Richard Double Fred Dretske John Dupré John Earman Laura Waddell Ekstrom Epictetus Epicurus Herbert Feigl John Martin Fischer Owen Flanagan Luciano Floridi Philippa Foot Alfred Fouilleé Harry Frankfurt Richard L. Franklin Michael Frede Gottlob Frege Peter Geach Edmund Gettier Carl Ginet Alvin Goldman Gorgias Nicholas St. John Green H.Paul Grice Ian Hacking Ishtiyaque Haji Stuart Hampshire W.F.R.Hardie Sam Harris William Hasker R.M.Hare Georg W.F. Hegel Martin Heidegger R.E.Hobart Thomas Hobbes David Hodgson Shadsworth Hodgson Baron d'Holbach Ted Honderich Pamela Huby David Hume Ferenc Huoranszki William James Lord Kames Robert Kane Immanuel Kant Tomis Kapitan Jaegwon Kim William King Hilary Kornblith Christine Korsgaard Saul Kripke Andrea Lavazza Keith Lehrer Gottfried Leibniz Leucippus Michael Levin George Henry Lewes C.I.Lewis David Lewis Peter Lipton John Locke Michael Lockwood E. Jonathan Lowe John R. Lucas Lucretius Ruth Barcan Marcus James Martineau Storrs McCall Hugh McCann Colin McGinn Michael McKenna Brian McLaughlin Paul E. Meehl Uwe Meixner Alfred Mele Trenton Merricks John Stuart Mill Dickinson Miller G.E.Moore C. Lloyd Morgan Thomas Nagel Friedrich Nietzsche John Norton P.H.Nowell-Smith Robert Nozick William of Ockham Timothy O'Connor David F. Pears Charles Sanders Peirce Derk Pereboom Steven Pinker Plato Karl Popper Porphyry Huw Price H.A.Prichard Hilary Putnam Willard van Orman Quine Frank Ramsey Ayn Rand Michael Rea Thomas Reid Charles Renouvier Nicholas Rescher C.W.Rietdijk Richard Rorty Josiah Royce Bertrand Russell Paul Russell Gilbert Ryle Jean-Paul Sartre Kenneth Sayre T.M.Scanlon Moritz Schlick Arthur Schopenhauer John Searle Wilfrid Sellars Alan Sidelle Ted Sider Henry Sidgwick Walter Sinnott-Armstrong J.J.C.Smart Saul Smilansky Michael Smith Baruch Spinoza L. Susan Stebbing George F. Stout Galen Strawson Peter Strawson Eleonore Stump Francisco Suárez Richard Taylor Kevin Timpe Mark Twain Peter Unger Peter van Inwagen Manuel Vargas John Venn Kadri Vihvelin Voltaire G.H. von Wright David Foster Wallace R. Jay Wallace W.G.Ward Ted Warfield Roy Weatherford William Whewell Alfred North Whitehead David Widerker David Wiggins Bernard Williams Timothy Williamson Ludwig Wittgenstein Susan Wolf Scientists On Nov 26, 2016, at 12:06 PM, tozziart...@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 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 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@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
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
