| Subject: Re: The measure for the set S of
perceptions
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 15:08:48 +0300 From: "Dimiter G. Chakalov" <dchakalov@surfeu.at> To: Don N Page <don@Phys.UAlberta.CA> CC: Paul Thagard <pthagard@watarts.uwaterloo.ca>, Susan Blackmore <jane_dytoli@hotmail.com>, Stevan Harnad <harnad@cogprints.soton.ac.uk>, Bernard Baars <baars@nsi.edu>, rjdavids@facstaff.wisc.edu, gf224@columbia.edu, antonio-damasio@uiowa.edu, ems@codon.nih.gov, jk@wjh.harvard.edu, mbb@harvard.edu, dfekete@purdue.edu, j.gruzelier@ic.ac.uk, j.parnavelas@ucl.ac.uk, robert.sternberg@yale.edu, itamarp@vms.huji.ac.il, takeo@bu.edu, cfc@wjh.harvard.edu, prinz@mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de, aschersleben@mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de, mechsner@mpipf-muenchen.mpg.de, dspiegel@leland.stanford.edu, aaer@psychology.su.se, jdhsmith@math.iastate.edu, Science@brown.edu, ellen.obrien@uphs.upenn.edu, AndrewSPowell@compuserve.com, V2058A@vm.temple.edu On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:00:15 -0700 (MST), Don Page wrote: > Could you remind me what basic facts of neuroscience
my SQM I believe your Sensible Quantum Mechanics (SQM), as presented in your quant-ph/9506010, gr-qc/9507024, and recently quant-ph/0108039, treats the mind as epiphenomenon. Hence your SQM is rooted on a well-known Marxist-Leninist hypothesis endorsed by Paul Thagard, who wrongly attributed it to the cognitive science in general (skipping everything we know from C. Jung and U. Neisser), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cognitive-science/#Rep
That same hypothesis was promoted by John von Neumann as "psycho-physical parallelism", and was also explained eloquently by Stephen Hawking in "A Brief History of Time", Bantam Books, 1988, pp. 163-164. This hypothesis is wrong because it converts the mind-body problem into "feeling-function" problem, Harnad, S. (2001) No Easy Way Out. The Sciences 41(2)
36-42.
which leads to a *dead-end*. See also http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#information http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#brain http://members.aon.at/chakalov/readme1st.html#brain_catastrophe and the first two paragraphs from http://members.aon.at/chakalov/intro.html The solution was suggested by Pauli and Jung more than fifty years ago, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#Pauli I elaborated on it at http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#trialism Baroness Susan Greenfield and Roger Penrose posed the question 'Do you think that your consciousness is inside your brain?' What do you think? Before answering this question, please keep in mind that your brain does act on itself when thinking about itself. This special kind of 'self-action' is a well-known problem in your field of expertise, as stressed by T. Padmanabhan, http://members.aon.at/chakalov/PHI.html#Padmanabhan I will be happy to learn your answer to the question above, as well as the opinion of all colleagues reading these lines. Thank you very much in advance. Regards, Dimi
P.S. You can read this note also at
D.
|
