Comments or Analysis Sought

[Jim Cross]

Where do I use the word "point" anywhere up to now?

You refer to physical fields. I look up the definition of those. They start with word "point". Like in your quote:

point in the field.

(...)

EM field can, like an integrated circuit, compute.

This does not answer my simple question, what is a point? If you believe that points can compute, you should be able to tell what a point is, and how points compute? I don't think that is too much to ask, but only fair?

The quote from McFadden says a field can compute. It doesn't say anything about a point computing. Are you just trolling? You're keep asking me to explain things that I haven't said.

[Jim Cross]

You might find this useful.

This report reviews the basic principles of field computation, a model of massively parallel analog computation, and discusses its applications in natural and artificial intelligence. We begin with the mathematical foundations and notation for field computation; Hilbert spaces provide the basic mathematical framework.

Some definitions:

Field: A continuous distribution of continuous quantity. Mathematically, an element of an appropriate space, such as a Hilbert space, of continuous-valued functions over a continuum. See also phenomenological field and structural field.

Field computation: Computation in which data are represented by fields, or by other representations that can be mathematically modeled by fields.

http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~bmaclenn/papers/RFC-TR.pdf

I'll admit there is a lot in the math that I will never understand, but it seems clear to me that with the brain, whether actual EM fields are being used (as McFadden argues) or the neural circuits themselves at some scale begin to take on field-like properties, we have an explanation for the key features of how the brain seems to work.

[SanteriSatama]

You might find this useful.

This report reviews the basic principles of field computation, a model of massively parallel analog computation, and discusses its applications in natural and artificial intelligence. We begin with the mathematical foundations and notation for field computation; Hilbert spaces provide the basic mathematical framework.

Some definitions:

Field: A continuous distribution of continuous quantity. Mathematically, an element of an appropriate space, such as a Hilbert space, of continuous-valued functions over a continuum. See also phenomenological field and structural field.

Field computation: Computation in which data are represented by fields, or by other representations that can be mathematically modeled by fields.

http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~bmaclenn/papers/RFC-TR.pdf

I'll admit there is a lot in the math that I will never understand, but it seems clear to me that with the brain, whether actual EM fields are being used (as McFadden argues) or the neural circuits themselves at some scale begin to take on field-like properties, we have an explanation for the key features of how the brain seems to work.

"Massively parallel analog" is very much in the right direction. But as such deeply inconsistent with Hilbert's axioms of geometry and Hilbert spaces, ie. the paradigm of point-reductionism of physicalism. In Hilbert's axioms 'point' is given as undefined primitive notion, and I don't accept undefined primitive notions as worthy of much attention nor worthy of any respect when they are most foundational concepts of a theory/paradigm. And the same goes for the related non-concept of set of axiomatic set theories.

Time as infinite set of points just does not work, it's deeply anti-empirical formalist language game. Causality requires computable continua - analogical measuring instead of discrete structuralism as the ontological primitive.

The mathematical foundation of physicalism is not only weak, it's also plain wrong in the key nodes. And as the concepts of physicalism are mathematical definitions, this causes immence problems for communication and genuine sense making.

Massively parallel analogues can be better investigated and explained e.g. as mereology of Bergson-durations, which are empirical philosophy and science, not an arbitrary post-modern language game on which physicalism is based.

[Jim Cross]

Your response is completely asymmetrical and not relevant to anything I was commenting about.

[SanteriSatama]

Your response is completely asymmetrical and not relevant to anything I was commenting about.

My response was to the point of "continuous" in the mathematical definitions of field you provided. The underlying formalist and point-reductionist mathematical theory does not allow to make consistent claims about continuity.

[Eugene I]

Circuits produce energy - that is somewhat less tangible physical quality that can feedback to the more material parts of the brain. That is the "film" to use your term.

The EM-field theory of consciousness is a promising approach, we will see how it works out. The real mystery is how these EM states are actually consciously experienced. How is that EM field can actually consciously experience itself? Maxwell equations or QED can supposedly explain all that EM field can do and all EM filed states of the brain. But they say nothing about how/why these states are consciously experienced, or what is it that experiences them, and there is no way they can ever explain that.

[SanteriSatama]

The EM-field theory of consciousness is a promising approach, we will see how it works out. The real mystery is how these EM states are actually consciously experienced. How is that EM field can actually consciously experience itself? Maxwell equations or QED can supposedly explain all that EM field can do and all EM filed states of the brain. But they say nothing about how/why these states are consciously experienced, or what is it that experiences them, and there is no way they can ever explain that.

A physicist friend with whom I had a long dialogue has "quantum-mind" theory or something in or near that general category, which talks about magnetic bodies about the size of Earth, and flesh and bone bodies incarnating in such bodies. In other words, our lives are lived in EM-field souls.

We had some disagreement whether such soul-fields are self-sentient as such and can feel themselves as such, or are they only aware of their thought-content, e.g. life forms like us (cf. ideal content?). We ended up in much worse, but related disagreement over foundations of mathematics and implications of those to mathematical physics. By their standard mathematical structure, physical fields can't be genuinely continuous and self-aware sentience. The math is much deeper that Maxwell equations or QED, it's very foundational.

In my experience and anecdotal evidence sentient fields can feel both self-feel (basic bodily awareness) as well as be aware of their thought content. The physicist seem to disagree that a field can be self-aware as such. Various positions and types of empathy barriers in their sentient and meta-cognitive aspects could be an explanatory model for such differences of opinion and experience.

We should not think of fields as totally smooth and unvaried. In the physicalist-formalist picture they are points with different numerical values. In my point-free approach the field-variation and form consists of continuous more-less processes. A Newtonian gravity field feels strongest in the center (heart) and less and less strong towards the edges, without any clear boundary. Most complex and mysterious fields are biofields of sentient beings with complex social interactions.

[SanteriSatama]

Mathematics, in my experience and foundational approach, is not an aboutness-relation about Reality-object. Mathematics is evolutionary form and language for sharing and creating new ways to experience. Mathematics is empirical science of sentient beauty and variation.