FQXi Community

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home

Current Essay Contest

Guidelines

FAQ

Essays: read and discuss

Latest FQXi news

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest
December 24, 2019 - April 24, 2020
Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discuss • winners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discuss • winners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discuss • winners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discuss • winners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discuss • winners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 3/18/17 at 10:02am UTC, wrote Dear JJJ I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where...

Joseph Jean-Claude: on 3/14/17 at 0:41am UTC, wrote Hello Boris. Thank you for both of your appreciative and critical comments...

Dizhechko Semyonovich: on 3/14/17 at 0:31am UTC, wrote Joseph J. Jean-Claude! I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort...

Satyavarapu Gupta: on 2/23/17 at 12:42pm UTC, wrote Dear Joseph, Thank you for reading my essay. I am reproducing my reply...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/18/17 at 10:23am UTC, wrote Joseph, Foundations of mathematics / Foundational crisis I believe that...

Joseph Jean-Claude: on 2/17/17 at 21:43pm UTC, wrote Vladimir, You did not put the Wikipedia link. However, I tried a Google...

Vladimir Rogozhin: on 2/17/17 at 19:23pm UTC, wrote Joseph , I can only give here a link to Wikipedia's "Foundations of...

Joseph Jean-Claude: on 2/17/17 at 16:37pm UTC, wrote Hello Vladimir. >>>But there is the problem of the foundations of...

RECENT FORUM POSTS

PRASAD DIVATE: "Respected sir, I have suggestions for next essay topic 1: consciousness..." in Undecidability,...

Steve Dufourny: "What I find relevant in all humility is that in my model of Spherisation..." in AI, Consciousness,...

PRASAD DIVATE: "Respected Professor Penrose sir, I always read your works and am greatly..." in AI, Consciousness,...

Steve Agnew: "A new model will be useful if and only if it can explain something that the..." in Is Causality Fundamental?

Steve Dufourny: "Hello , dear Jason, your general analysis is interesting, that implies a..." in Is Causality Fundamental?

Steve Dufourny: "I have remarked in all humility that if we want to unify this GR and this..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "here is my intuitive equation about this matter non baryonic encoded also..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "Hello Mr Snowdon, it is well said what you tell, I agree that this time is..." in The Nature of Time

RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Lockdown Lab Life
Grounded physicists are exploring the use of online and virtual-reality conferencing, and AI-controlled experiments, to maintain social distancing. Post-pandemic, these positive innovations could make science more accessible and environmentally-friendly.

Is Causality Fundamental?
Untangling how the human perception of cause-and-effect might arise from quantum physics, may help us understand the limits and the potential of AI.

Building Agency in the Biology Lab
Physicists are using optogenetics techniques to make a rudimentary agent, from cellular components, which can convert measurements into actions using light.

Think Quantum to Build Better AI
Investigating how quantum memory storage could aid machine learning and how quantum interactions with the environment may have played a role in evolution.

Outside the Box
A proposed quantum set-up that could predict your game-playing strategy resurrects Newcomb’s classic quiz show paradox.

read & discuss all articles

FQXi FORUM

August 12, 2020

CATEGORY: Wandering Towards a Goal Essay Contest (2016-2017) [back]
TOPIC: Mathematical Foundation of Human Cognitive Categories of Aims and Intentions by Joseph J. Jean-Claude [refresh]

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 18, 2017 @ 21:58 GMT

Essay Abstract

Despite its deep-seated complexities, life and in particular human complex processes of mentation are thoroughly permeable to analysis on the basis of pure mathematical formalism. I will show in this thesis how abstract mathematical categories are perfectly appropriate to the analysis of the inception of human aims and intention.

Author Bio

Father of two. College education in Electrical Engineering and Laser Optics Engineering. Hold patent for a communication product by US Patent & Trademark Office. Several decades of research in system theory. Equally fluent in English, French, Spanish and Creole. Long time soccer fan, love watching soccer games in leisure time.

Download Essay PDF File

Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 20, 2017 @ 16:40 GMT

Dear Researcher Jean-Claude,

One real visible Universe cannot possibly have any invisible dual ontology.

One real visible Universe must have only one reality. Simple natural reality has nothing to do with any abstract complex musings such as the ones you effortlessly indulge in. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as theories of reality are.

Avoid watching Manchester City.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 01:22 GMT

Brilliant Joe,

Just a few not so brilliant questions concerning your "thoughtful" essay:

1.- What is the cause of a surface?

2.- What does a surface consist of?

3.- Can a pure surface split from within its fabric or defoliate?

4.- How many different dimensions can there be to a surface?

5.- Could there be a mathematical description of any sort of surfaces?

6.- If you consider yourself to be mainly a surface, as I should conclude, how do aims and intentions arise from your surface or surfaces?

Thank you.

Joseph

PS: Manchester City soccer is not my favorite! am with you on that one!

______

Joe Fisher replied on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 15:59 GMT

Dear Joseph,

Thank you ever so much for reading my essay and for your probing questions.

1. Unified infinite surface cannot possibly have had any sort of finite causation.

2. There am only one unified infinite surface that am eternally apparent.

3. One unified infinite surface am indivisible, but infinitely visible.

4. Unified visible infinite surface occurs in one infinite dimension.

5. Mathematics am the most effective weapon man has ever devised. It has lead inexorably to the manufacture of the hydrogen bomb.

I must be surface because only surface exists. My only aim and intention am to convince as many people as I can that the real visible Universe am not mathematical. As I have thoughtfully pointed out in my brilliant essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY, the real Universe consists only of one unified visible infinite surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light. Reality am not as complicated as finite mathematical constructs are.

I am about to watch Manchesty City lose to Totemham Hotspur.

Joe Fisher, Realist

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 15:26 GMT

Joe,

Your perspective is that of infinite or asymptotic mentation, one in which only the dimension of linear or planar surface exists, as the highest possible spatial expression. Evidently the self does not exist in that dimension, only the collective because it privileges spatial spread over all else; the self is so fused within the collective, for a vision of completely unified physical reality. That is why you prefer the tense "am" to everything you express, obliterating the distinction between other and self. For the same reason do you repetitively use the word brilliant to stress "luminous".

If you look at my atlas of mentation, this form of mental fit corresponds to the suite of thoughts repertoried on the 9th layer, typified as infinite mentation. It is the predominance of these thoughts that constitutes the root of your philosophy.

If you wanted to know the origin of intentions that surround your philosophy, as well as the mathematical basis to them (which you adamantly reject however), my essay gives you my 2 cents of clues!

Thanks anyway for reading my essay, Joe. And congratulations on yours.

Joseph

____________________________

P.S. Mancester City could not beat Totemham!

Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 21, 2017 @ 14:27 GMT

Hello Mr Jean-Claude,

Thanks for sharing your work.I didn't well these cognitive sciences.It seems relevant considering the informations indeed and our consciousness.How we encode, how we sort? The human emotions and the consciousness evolve also.I lmiked your degrees of freedom and the categorification.That said how can we compute correctly these informations and emotions.I am persuaded that universalism and altruism are an entropical truth.How can we quantify the conscviousness ? it seems complex and iontriguing.That said if we consider that the rational categorifications are foundamen,tal and that the unconsciousness and evil comportments them are sorted,that becomes intriguing.The binar informations are different than our gravitational and electromagnetic photonic informations.That said that can converge in logic if the good foundamental parameters are the main domains.The spherical volumes could help with the Bloch sphères.The informations so can be quantified and even we could correlate with the quantum computing and the 3D sphères.The AI is one thing after all and the brain and consciousness an other.We can even rank the states of consciousness because of course all are not aware of this entropical irreversible truth.It is odd when we analyse the whole even.Thanks still for your work and good luck in this contest.

Regards

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 14:25 GMT

Hello Dufourny.

Thank you for your wishes.

I am well aware of your theory of universal ontology based on spheres.

I hope that you can recognize from my writing that spherical symmetry (3-space symmetry based on one degree of freedom) is only one within a suite of 9 fundamental symmetries in nature. And as to our minds, spherical symmetry sustains only one instance of mentation, the one that materializes monocentric thoughts giving rise to instinctual and reflexive behavior.

That is pretty far down from the ethics, altruism and universalism, which you referred to. Those are based on a richer symmetry owning 8 degrees of freedom, from the formula for symmetry modulus.

To your question of how we can compute consciousness and emotional information, I have precisely shown that you can formulate them in terms of mathematical tensors. In the atlas, every slice stands for a form of thought and every slice represents a geometric entity that is subject to computation via the mathematics of tensors or even the calculus of surfaces of revolution.

I appreciate and thank you for the attention that you have given to my essay.

Cheers.

Joseph

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 15:24 GMT

Hi Joseph,

You are welcome.

about my theory of spherisation with quant and cosm 3D sphères Inside an Universal 3D sphere and my equation E=mc²+ml² :) Hope I am on the good road because if the universe is a square and that particles are points :) I am not on the good road.But in logic they turn so they are.

About your works, I am not unfortunately good in computing,I am not good for mathematical détails in computing.That said I understand the whole and what is the computing in all humility and maths.I beleive strongly that maths are a wonderful tool and that computing is a wonderful invention,technological.Now about the simulations and about AI and consciousness, of course we are still at the begining of this sciences and correlated cognitive sciences.It is a new road of research.It seems complex.I liked your generality and your tool and method.Now I am not qualified to say if the degrees of freedom are computable.It seems difficult to quantify these emotions and to mimate the synaptic interactions.If we consider a mimating system due to automata due to algorythmic maths series ,so we can mimate if the good parameters are inserted.But what about the autonomy of a system without sortings and synchro?? it seems intriguing.Mimate seems possible, a consciousness I am doubting considering that the informations are differfent for biology.The evolution also must be considered and the numbers of particles composing an adn and brainsalso.The consciousness after all is a result of evolution with our brains.How can we consider what is consciousness ? just an electromagnetic effect due to electric informations in brains or are we more complex still due to gravitation and its informations.It is not easy to really encircle this consciousness.Why,How? we search answers after all.Good luck in this contest.Bestb Regards

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 19:19 GMT

I have thought a lot about évolution.We see on this Arrow of time that life is an emergent reality of encodings implying an increasing mass.We know 4,5 billions years ago the primitive soap with CH4 NH3 HCN H2C2 H2O ...have given amino acids and after unicells after pluricells sponges fishs reptilians mammalians hominids homo sopiens sapiens to make short in resume.We see that life evolves and that complexification is a reality.The brains also evolve and of course the consciousness seems correlated in a general point of vue.Of course now if we analyse at this moment the homo sapiens sapiens and the number of 7,5 billions of humans,and that we analyse the emotions and the cognitive sciences and the psychology.And if we insert the evolutive parameters ,that becomes a big puzzle considering the human comportments.The parameters of human comportments are complex.Sometimes I say me but why we have had these wars or why we have this evil, this unconsciousness ? Is it due to our reptilain brains ? the evil in this logic is dedicated to disappear when we correlate with this said universal consciousness.We can rank indeed these informations and it exists many informations even for emotions.But the universalism and altruism shall be in increasing like the mass.We evolve and the parameters of encodings and cognitive interactions are so numerous that it needs a real ranking.But what is a ranking ? how can we consider the importance of an information ? the spherical volumes perhaps ? If now we analyse more far in inserting this quantum gravitation,this weakest force and that we consider gravitational informations, so it becomes relevant about the Arrow of time.That is why I beleive that we die electromagnetically not gravitationally.Of course this analyse is a philosophical point of vue,but after all matter and energy are our only one reality.If the consciousness is correlated with our gravitational singularity, so the spherical volumes indeed could help for the importance of an information.A little like the postulates and universal laws,they are proved and verified.c G and h are constants proved.We could so give an imrportance in function of volumes for a rational thought.The degrees of freedom so could be ranked with these volumes.What do you think ?

view post as summary

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 22, 2017 @ 21:51 GMT

Dear Anonymous,

What you are calling for is a theory of everything that can not only explains matter but life as well. A tall order. Best way to think about it is that the universe is deployed in a suite of Shells,from the infinitesimal quarks, to elementary particles, to atoms, to molecules to lattices to karyots to astral bodies to solar systems to galaxies to galaxy groups, etc. Each of these shells is based on a physical constant acting as an invariant in the role of building block for the Shell.

How each Shell emerges from the previous is geared by the most fundamental of physical laws, which is a symmetry stack that is ubiquitous and from which the suite of physical constants arise at every step. The structure that conforms the phenomenon of human mentation i.e. is in essence no different than the one that organizes an atom. If you can spend some time on my paper, you will find all the elements of what I am attempting to explain here in a few words.

Evil, as you mention, is part of the symmetry stack, a necessary ontological element among others that conforms every whole, as controversial as this may sound. I can assure you that if it were not for the many lysosomes in mother Theresa's body cells, which orchestrate timely destruction of their cellular hosts when these are damaged or become otherwise undesirable, her body would have become all malignant and succumb much before she could have done any of the good deeds she has spread around the world! Evil becomes a problem only in the context of correlational disjoint within the whole, as it starts acting on its own for its own and sole purpose, or a part of the whole is perusing it in disfavor of the whole. Evil as you say is incarnate in Layer 7 of the symmetry stack.

As I told Dufourny, his spheres are only one aspect of reality: monocentric symmetry. You will not go very far with just that.

I appreciate your feedback and your interest in the wider world out there!

Bonsoir!

Joseph

_____________________________

view post as summary

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 07:42 GMT

It was me the anonymous the crazzy spherical man ,Interesting Jedi ,but If I can.My sphères are real ,don't confound computing ,geometrical algebras and evolution.if you want to encircle the real encodins.I am doubting that the vectors and scalars with points can answer?It is a beautiful tool, that is all.Your symmetries are just that , a play of maths with computing.Me they turn so they are here is my equation E=mc²+ml² don't hesitate to ask détails ,I explain gravitation with humility.One aspect of the reality ??? and how they encode your quantum 3D sphères ,with binar informations it is that ? To you :)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 07:45 GMT

ps eden hazard to Debruyn, debruyn to lukaku,lukaku hazard ,hazard hazard mertens GOALLLLLLLLLL Belgium Belgium Belgium :)

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jan. 23, 2017 @ 08:00 GMT

the problem is about the interpretation of an information.We have different informations ,the binar infromations,the electromagnetic informations and the gravitational informations.I see only a play for computing with for binar informations for automata and AI.I don't see a correlation with rotations of 3D sphères for example and their volumes.Where are the superimposings, the synchronizations, the sortings ? How the informations are encoded and sorted and why also ?Have we convergences with our 3D system? These informations and cognitive sciences are a big puzzle I agree but this puzzle seems respecting the newtonian laws of motions.They turn so they are after all these sphères.The combinations with motions of spherical volumes are infinite ....

report post as inappropriate

John Edward LaMuth wrote on Jan. 28, 2017 @ 23:46 GMT

Joseph

You seem to have devised an elegant math-model and then populated it with a wide assortment of seemingly random affective terms (after the fact) Where is your experimental proof that all this truly models the way the mind works ??

Usually observations are made, then Math is devised to explain the data-set - NOT the reverse.

John L

www.world-peace.org

www.forebrain.org

http://youtu.be/gMSGoxUSYxk

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 01:59 GMT

Fair objection, Jack. I have this to say.

1.- No neuroscientist has yet proven causal relationship between cognition and brain activity, but only a correspondence relationship at best. That is why the two-century-long efforts by neuroscientists, physicists and others to unravel the mechanisms within the central nervous system that are responsible for the production of thoughts. In the lack of the above, the maps that you report, known ever since Cajal with little improvement over the decades, have no more solid experimental basis than the atlas of cognition that I have proposed.

2.- My aim was not to propose a model of cognition based on neuronal anatomy, which is not the subject matter of assignment, but to present the structure of pure human cognition according to a fitting mathematical formalism, as I understand the subject matter to be.

3.- The mentation atlas that I presented is not merely “populated after the fact with affective terms” as you put it. It is what you end up with when you attempt to normalize the repertory of human thoughts according to their phenomenological qualities, in almost the same manner as the normalization of population data, blood pressure in a population, individuals heights, IQ scores, etc. gives you a (normal) Gaussian Distribution. The latter stands for the most universal form of distributions, and it is amply grandfathered by the Quanto-Geometric Model I propose. I recognize that such novelty may and will meet resistance.

4.- The encompassing cognitive triplet structure of conscious/semi-conscious/unconscious is universally recognized in all schools of psychology, while at the same time every human individual can attest to it from their own daily mental experience. I show how it can be narrowly apprehended from specific mathematical categories that are consistent as well with the distribution of thoughts, emotions and intentions. My vision only asks of anyone for recourse to introspection for corroboration and calls NOT for the sacrifice and torture of a single cat’s brain.

Now, if I wanted to present a correlated neuro-anatomical atlas to my mentation atlas, I could very eloquently do so based on experimental outcomes. But I would have been off-topic, don’t you think, Jack?

Again, I earnestly wish you good luck in this contest and appreciate the serious effort that you have shown in your essay.

Joseph

view post as summary

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 02:50 GMT

Sorry, I meant to say "John" in post above.

(Just talked to Jack!).

Pardon my error.

Joseph

John Edward LaMuth replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 08:53 GMT

No Problem...

Humanistic Psychology employs some Phenomenology-based qualitative research techniques that might lead to proving your theory (skipping the neurosci. approach altogether)

Good luck

John L *_^

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 14:21 GMT

Thank you, John, for the clue. But I am not afraid of the neurosci., just that it is a different slant on the topic.

Hey, I have to say that your idea of Periodicity in neuro-anatomy is a great idea. A commendable attempt to bring this elusive science of cognition closer to the formalism of the hard sciences.

Cheers.

Joseph

Stephen I. Ternyik wrote on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 09:29 GMT

Quantum geometry of human cognition, in physical terms, is an ambitious research project; it is a 'practical' application of your general works, especially the book. The dual composition of the mathematical model is very reasonable as the mental forces of the human mind always work in opposite directions. Wishing you further success in developing 'cognitive physics', Joseph. Best: stephen

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Jan. 29, 2017 @ 14:31 GMT

Thank you, Steve, for your wishes.

I would be interested in exposing myself further to your vision, which I find quite appealing.

If you have any other material published elsewhere, let me know.

Thank you.

Joseph

Jose P. Koshy wrote on Feb. 6, 2017 @ 18:25 GMT

Joseph J. Jean-Claude

Your language is mathematical: scalar and space spread (I am of the opinion that the language of physics should be 'physical'). Is Quanto-Geometry your original idea? Do you visualize an absolute time and space as a background? Have you explained the formation of a structure we call the universe based on your concepts?

Now coming to the core argument of the essay, you have put forth nine 'mathematical incarnations' and nine 'compartments in which our thoughts are sorted into' and propose there is a one to one relationship between these. I feel there is some arbitrariness in selecting nine. With seven or five, a similar explanation may be possible. Do you argue that the 'machine language' used by brain is decimal?

However, brain is three-dimensional, and data storing have to follow some mathematical patterns, and I think it is not binary number system that is used. So your selection of decimal system, though arbitrary, is interesting. Your attempt to list our thoughts into 72 is remarkable, though I doubt whether it has anything more than a beautiful piece of art-work.

The nine equations you have put forth, I think, represents a continuous surface or any thing like that physically. The classification of thoughts are also somewhat continuous. So a relation between these seems logical. But the actual brain structures are not continuous because these are made up of molecules having different three-dimensional shapes. The functioning of the brain depends on the physical interactions between structures having different spatial structures. It seems you have ignored this physical part completely.

Jose P Koshy

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Feb. 7, 2017 @ 01:58 GMT

Thank you for your comments, Jose.

1.- My language is mathematical-physics, differential geometry and operator mathematics. I have a paper on Academia.edu and ResearchGate that more broadly answers the fullness of your other questions in the first block (Quanto-Geometric Tensors and Operators on Unified Quantum Relativistic Background).

2.- The nine layers of thoughts arise from the mathematics of the model, which call for a universal distribution of nine different types of ontologies. The presented cognitive atlas represents the most irreducible forms of possible thoughts when you attempt to normalize them. They are faithfully modeled by the nine Quanto-Geometric Tensors. These irreducibles are far from arbitrary, given that they obey the Gaussian distribution pattern “qualitatively”.

3.- Since the Tensors are 3-space entities, it is easy to apply them to the atlas, which is 3-dimensional. One aspect of the model that was not presented here is the development of cognitive flows throughout the atlas, showing how information travels from one thought partition to the next, which represents the dynamical aspect of the model. With that part I would have exceeded the space limits allowed by the contest.

4.- You are right in pointing out that there must be a dimension of the model that correlates the cognitive atlas to human neuro-anatomy. That was not part of my intended scope for this work though, choosing to focus on the mathematical approach to cognition.

Thanks again for your insightful comments.

Joseph

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 23:07 GMT

Very nice essay on human cognitive mathematics, best wishes…

I hope you are not planning to give all these knowledge to robots and they will triumph over humans…. I am just joking …….

I request you also have look at my essay on Dynamic Universe model and give your esteemed opinion….

Best

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude wrote on Feb. 12, 2017 @ 23:20 GMT

Hello Mr. Gupta.

Thank you for your comments.

I think there is more real danger with us tweaking the foundations of life than there will ever be with our robots. You know when they say incomplete knowledge is dangerous...

Though I have reviewed quite a few essays already, I will try to review yours as time permits and hopefully will give you a passing grade on the merits.

Cheers.

Joseph

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 13, 2017 @ 03:47 GMT

Dear Joseph J. Jean-Claude,

Very nice essay on human cognitive mathematics, best wishes…

I hope you are not planning to give all these knowledge to robots and they will triumph over humans…. I am just joking …….

I request you also have look at my essay on Dynamic Universe model and give your esteemed opinion….

Best

report post as inappropriate

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 11:05 GMT

Dear Joseph ,

Very original ideas and conception. I really liked your essay… But there is the problem of the foundations of mathematics (knowledge).

Sincerely,

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 16:37 GMT

Hello Vladimir.

>>>But there is the problem of the foundations of mathematics (knowledge).

What is this problem? Do you care to elaborate a little bit more?

Joseph

Vladimir Rogozhin replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 19:23 GMT

Joseph ,

I can only give here a link to Wikipedia's "Foundations of mathematics" and "Philosophy of mathematics", but the most concise description of the problem of the foundations of mathematics - Article in Russian S.Cherepanov "Foundation of mathematics: A NEW LOOK AT THE PROBLEM"

Solving the problem of the foundations of mathematics - this is the solution of the problem of justification (substantiation) of knowledge. This is the problem number 1 not only in philosophy.

Unfortunately, I do not know English, so instead of "foundation + justification+ substantiation" (GOOGLE translates as "base"), I use a wider (comprehensive ) concept: "basification of mathematics (knowledge)". It is understood as "ontological basification" - the establishment of the ontological framework, carcass, foundation (base, substruction).

Vladimir

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Feb. 17, 2017 @ 21:43 GMT

Vladimir,

You did not put the Wikipedia link.

However, I tried a Google translate of your Russian text. There is apparently a length limit on Google translate. Only got a portion translated (and not very good!)

If you have directly written the above post, I think that you have enough English for a conversation. Maybe you can summarize your idea in 2 or 3 sentences, and we could start from there.

By the way, I thought that mathematics was the highest level of reliable constructive abstraction accessible to mankind (as opposed to philosophy which is expansive and perhaps imprecise). I did not know that there was an ontology problem in mathematics. That is what I kind of gathered from your post. Maybe you can explain further.

Joseph

show all replies (1 not shown)

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Feb. 23, 2017 @ 12:42 GMT

Dear Joseph,

Thank you for reading my essay. I am reproducing my reply here for your immediate perusal....

Thank you very much for your words of kindly nature. I did not understand the word “karyot” or “karyotic life”. Search in Google, Wikipedia and On line dictionary did not give any meaning. My English is poor.

Hope you will explain me what is “karyot” and “Karotic life” is it same as prokaryote… I dont know……..

Taking it as single cell biological reproduction instead of sexuate reproduction, probably at universe level the sexuate reproduction not possible!

Other problem I faced is length of the essay limitation.

Thank you for the nice and encouraging suggestions…

Best Regards

=snp.gupta

report post as inappropriate

Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta replied on Mar. 18, 2017 @ 10:02 GMT

Dear JJJ

I want you to ask you to please have a look at my essay, where ……………reproduction of Galaxies in the Universe is described. Dynamic Universe Model is another mathematical model for Universe. Its mathematics show that the movement of masses will be having a purpose or goal, Different Galaxies will be born and die (quench) etc…just have a look at the essay… “Distances,...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Dizhechko Boris Semyonovich wrote on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 00:31 GMT

Joseph J. Jean-Claude!

I appreciate your essay. You spent a lot of effort to write it.

If you believed in the principle of identity of space and matter of Descartes, then your essay would be even better. There is not movable a geometric space, and is movable physical space. These are different concepts.

I invite you to familiarize yourself with New Cartesian Physic

I wish to see your criticism on the New Cartesian Physic, the founder of which I call myself.

The concept of moving space-matter helped me: The uncertainty principle Heisenberg to make the principle of definiteness of points of space-matter; Open the law of the constancy of the flow of forces through a closed surface is the sphere of space-matter; Open the law of universal attraction of Lorentz; Give the formula for the pressure of the Universe; To give a definition of gravitational mass as the flow vector of the centrifugal acceleration across the surface of the corpuscles, etc.

New Cartesian Physic has great potential in understanding the world. To show this potential in essay I risked give «The way of The materialist explanation of the paranormal and the supernatural” - Is the name of my essay.

Visit my essay and you will find something in it about New Cartesian Physic. Note my statement that our brain creates an image of the outside world no inside, and in external space.

Do not let New Cartesian Physic get away into obscurity! I am waiting your post.

Sincerely,

Dizhechko Boris

report post as inappropriate

Author Joseph J. Jean-Claude replied on Mar. 14, 2017 @ 00:41 GMT

Hello Boris.

Thank you for both of your appreciative and critical comments on my essay.

I will try to find the time to read yours. Hopefully I will find enough merits for positive uplifting comments.

Cheers.

Joseph