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.

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

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

**Undecidability, Uncomputability, and Unpredictability Essay Contest**

*December 24, 2019 - March 16, 2020*

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

**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

Current Essay Contest

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

Previous Contests

Contest Partners: Fetzer Franklin Fund, and The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation

read/discuss

read/discuss • winners

How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?

Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.

read/discuss • winners

Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

read/discuss • winners

Forum Home

Introduction

Terms of Use

RSS feed | RSS help

Introduction

Terms of Use

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

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

**Steve Agnew**: "The mind-body problem is among the many questions that people continue to..."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Georgina Woodward**: "Hi Jason, the video is categorized as entertainment."
*in* Emergent Reality: Markus...

**Steve Dufourny**: "We have a big philosophical problem with the strings and the photons like..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Steve Dufourny**: "If my equation is correct, E=mc^2+Xl^2 , so how can we take this enormous..."
*in* Alternative Models of...

**Lorraine Ford**: "Re "I tend to speed-read then review before scoring after reading a good..."
*in* Undecidability,...

**John Cox**: "George, We shouldn't conflate contradiction with inconsistency. QM has a..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

**John Cox**: "Georgi, by and large I agree. Near the end of the discussion panel,..."
*in* Watching the Watchmen:...

RECENT ARTICLES

*click titles to read articles*

**First Things First: The Physics of Causality**

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

**Can Time Be Saved From Physics?**

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

**Thermo-Demonics**

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

**Gravity's Residue**

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

**Could Mind Forge the Universe?**

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

RECENT FORUM POSTS

RECENT ARTICLES

Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

FQXi FORUM

January 19, 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]

TOPIC: Mathematical Foundation of Human Cognitive Categories of Aims and Intentions by Joseph J. Jean-Claude [refresh]

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.

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.

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

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

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!

______

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:

______

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

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

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!*

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

____________________________

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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...

view entire post

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

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...

view entire post

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...

view entire post

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

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

report post as inappropriate

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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...

view entire post

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...

view entire post

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

(Just talked to Jack!).

Pardon my error.

Joseph

(Just talked to Jack!).

Pardon my error.

Joseph

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

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>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

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

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

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

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

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

report post as inappropriate

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

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

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

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

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

Login or create account to post reply or comment.