|Subject: Do we address the theoretical questions sincerely?
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 23:34:16 +0000
From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <email@example.com>
To: Bernard Baars <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
Dear Professor Baars:
In your email from Thu, 31 Jan 2002 14:58:51 -0800, you wrote:
> But I don't think our interaction would be productive!
Let's get serious. We're about facts and we want to find the truth, so we have to be sincere and honest in addressing the questions we need to solve.
If you were collecting bottle labels and I was doing post stamps, then we won't be able, even in principle, to say who is on the right track: there is no such thing as *the truth* in collecting stamps or bottle labels.
> Still, as a friend mine used to say, go with God, if there is one!
I believe we're doing science, so let's get to some basic indisputable facts from your field of expertise, as a Senior Fellow in Theoretical Neurobiology at The Neurosciences Institute, San Diego.
As you acknowledged in your book "A Cognitive Theory of Consciousness" (Cambridge UP, 1998, Ch. 10.99), we live in a world "one of whose most miraculous features, as Einstein has said, is our ability to know it."
NB: To comprehend the world around us, we operate with something that is NOT in the brain, and can NOT be found in the brain: the world of Platonic ideas, universals, archetypes, etc.
Some trivial examples are provided at
There is no way to find Platonic ideas encoded/stored in the human brain: a knowledge which, once created, will not change during our lifetime, and at the same time would be open for including new knowledge emerging from the 'unknown unknown'. The trivial example here is the idea of 'vehicle' some 100 years ago, which includes 'space shuttle', although the latter was at that time still in the realm of the 'unknown unknown'.
I will be happy if you or some colleague of yours can prove me wrong on the NB statement above. Let's face the facts -- whatever they are -- and stop jumping around them like a cat around a hot pot of milk. It's about time.
You can read this email also at
I will appreciate it if you could pass the link above to Professors G. Edelman, F. Crick, and Baroness Susan Greenfield. I couldn't find their email addresses.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
P.S. I'm sure you've noticed that the theory at my web site is aimed at solving the problem above: how could the brain be linked to something that is NOT in the brain, but which makes the world comprehensible *via* the brain,