Dear Gordana,
Thanks for your wise comment.
You say: "It is vital to be aware under which assumption model/theory has
been made".
It is an old statement, that reminds me the axiomatic fundations of Hilbert and
the linguistic jokes of the second Wittgenstein: neuroscientists start from a
theory-laden model, e.g., a linguistic joke, where a series of axioms are
preventively stated, then they find, through experimental procedures, what they
want to find.
To make an example: "The brain is a non-linear system at the edge of chaos"...
or, at the opposite: "The brain is linear"... there are dozens of papers
confirming both the approaches!
We want clearly state that we do not know anything about the brain: also the
more successful current models, such as the connectome approaches, do not
explain anything at all.
Indeed, we do not know how to define consciousness, emotions, perception, and
so on. Neuroscientists say that we need to be on focus on a single brain
activity (even if we do not know which are the brain activities!). I think
this is an hopeless approach, unless we do not have a very GENERAL scheme of
the brain function.
Therefore, due to our current lack of knowledge, we need something different:
we need a model that, in a "physicalistic" fashion, is not able to explain a
single brain function, but all the brain functions.
We need to explore something completely different.
We admit that ours is a linguistic joke like others, but, to avoid to be
"metaphysical", we propose how to test our own linguistic joke, in order to
experimentally assess whether it is the "real" one.
The advantage of our approach is that it holds for all the "brain functions",
therefore it can be assessed and falsified by starting either from emotions, or
cognition, and so on.
We have also the advantage that our approach is multidisciplinary: we "glue
together" issues from far-flung branches, like a bird who watches a landscape
from afar. We do not know whether our linguistic joke is just a fake, but, at
least, we are pursuing SCIENTIFICAL, testable hypotheses that are different
from the standard ones.
--
Inviato da Libero Mail per Android sabato, 26 novembre 2016, 08:31PM +01:00 da
Gordana Dodig-Crnkovic gordana.dodig-crnko...@mdh.se :
>Dear colleagues,
>
>Krassimir makes very important point that I would like to expand on.
>
>It is vital to be aware under which assumption model/theory has been made. One
>might wish that this be accepted as a fundamental rule among researchers
>presenting their models – first declare fundamental assumptions
(preferably also implicit ones).
>
>Only if we clearly understand the assumptions can we compare different models
>and approaches. What happens all too often is that this fundamental part is
>unclear and big discussions are taking place for no reason
as theories are built under different assumptions and refer to different
domains, have different level of abstraction etc. but they are assumed to
somehow give the same results.
>
>For example if we make our models under assumption that light has corpuscular
>nature, we will see certain classes of phenomena. On the contrary, if we
>assume that it is a wave, we will see something else.
>
>The same goes even here. We should see the assumptions and ask ourselves:
>
>What does it imply if we assume that consciousness is a continuous function of
>reflected reality?
>
>What does it imply if assume that consciousness is Euclidean n-space?
>
>
>With best wishes,
>Gordana
>
>
>
>
>_
>Gordana Dodig Crnkovic, Professor of Computer Science
>Vice Dean of Graduate Education
>Department of Applied IT
>Chalmers University of Technology & University of Gothenburg, Sweden
>http://www.ait.gu.se/kontaktaoss/personal/gordana-dodig-crnkovic /
>School of Innovation, Design and Engineering, Mälardalen University
>http://www.mrtc.mdh.se/~gdc /
>President of the International Society for Information Studies
>http://is4si-2017.org /
>
>
>
>
>From: Fis < fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es > on behalf of Krassimir Markov <
>mar...@foibg.com >
>Organization: ITHEA
>Reply-To: Krassimir Markov < mar...@foibg.com >
>Date: Saturday 26 November 2016 at 18:23
>To: FIS < fis@listas.unizar.es >
>Subject: [Fis] Who may proof that consciousness is an Euclidean n-space ???
>
>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 pr
