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 <joe.bren...@bluewin.ch> 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 <fis@listas.unizar.es> > *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&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* 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 <https://e-aj.my.com/compose?To=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 Bangalore 560019, Karnataka, India Mobile (Intn'l): +44 7710 534195 Mobile (India) +91 900 800 8789 ____________________________________________________________ 2015 JPBMB Special Issue on Integral Biomathics: Life Sciences, Mathematics and Phenomenological Philosophy <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00796107/119/3>
_______________________________________________ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
