Explaining consciousness

Administrador del Nodo Postmaster at neubio.gov.ar
Wed Sep 20 20:32:05 EST 1995


Hello, netters!

               Lacking full access to Internet,	we can evaluate
the contribution of Ken Seto (kenseto at erinet.com) from the ex-
cerpta he provided to this scientific forum. Let us do it now,
as follows:

SUMMARY OF SETO'S PROPOSAL: Between any two real particles in parallel 
trajectories, a force exists besides their hadronic, electro-weak
and gravitatory couplings. This new force is repulsive. Its repulsivity
is never negativized, at any distance. Such a repulsion generates,
in time, real losses of parallelism in said particles' trajectories. 
The delay in the coming forth of the future states of every natural
system (= the relaxation of the integral of the forces, or the "step"
of the "time transformation") is absolute (= Lorenz-invariant). What
undergoes such absolute time transformation is a composite space
medium; this space medium is composed of entities whose geometry
is dynamic (geometrodynamics). It unimpedes the translative motions
of one unique kind of particulate entities, movable inside said medium,
whose motions make up the observable particles and their mesocosmic and 
cosmological assemblies. Among these, the two any real particles mentioned
in the first line of the present Summary should also be counted. Not only
all observable particles and conglomerations are made up by the unimpeded
motions of said unique particles, motions that are qualified as "orbit-
ing". Also, the three mentioned couplings are generated, too, by said
motions inasmuch as relative each another. Every other physical process
is traceable back into the described one. This includes the connections
among about a 15% of the brain cells, that chance to be tied synaptica-
lly but which are, also, tied by said compositive entities of the space
medium in a way that plays a big role in the consciousness process. Phy-
sicists others than Ken Seto have determined that there are in Nature
gravitatory, electromagnetic and "nuclear weak" and "strong" forces. But
Einsteinian geometrodynamics was forced to the erroneous conclusion that
time is a flexible quantity because of a need of eliminating the hypothe-
sis of the vacuum being a substance. In such a frame it is also posited
that the relative direction of motion has no effect on the gravitatory
coupling among particles with mass. But experimental apparatuses move
not cancellably due to microphysical turbulency and, therefore, relative
(Galilean) rest is unfeasible. Forever unknown values are accounted for
and their effects taken into account. Not-historic predictive syntheses
as relativity and quantum mechanics failed to provide historic accounts
of astrophysical-biological factual events. Physicists, as physicists,
are seeking for a theory of everything. This ought to be identical to
the ground because of which there is something real rather than nothing.
This transcendent ground is of course wholly other than the nature (both
nature born in time or giving birth to time transformation); so, the more
unifying theory sought for by physicists must be metaphysical, and to ser-
ve the goals of such ground (a fact) ought to be the most valuable goal 
for human action (an ethical command).
 
(The remaining of Ken Seto's communicated words do not add any further
articulation to the above summary. They are repetititious or unuseful
for trying to extract either insightful remarks of facts or original
philosophical contributions, and Seto's should be asked to retire them
from his public sollicitation of colleagues' reading time.)

EVALUATION OF KEN SETO'S CONTRIBUTION: In the tradition of this re-
viewer, a hylozoist stance is sustained; so, our first remark on
Seto's proposal is that it is stanced onto a kinetized physics and,
just as the great majority of descriptions of the sentient parenchyma,
it too is inscribed in such kinetization, trying to reduce the physical
dimensions of sentience into those of collisional motion (as usually,
into difficult-to-verify quantum jitterinesses or "subtilitates").
Seto seems to have not the minimal idea of such a cultural prefigura-
tion and of course believes that such a kind of disexplanation can be
enough to describe the sentient condensed matter. But this problem,
so common in the attempted comprehensive accounts of the brain, su-
ffices to reject this theory in our field.

However, the absoluteness of time transformation is the same contra-
diction (with a logicist framework) that moved much fructiferous advan-
ces in the history of our science.  Seto no doubt has the insight of
this natural fact and, so, he tries to accommodate it with the Euro-
pean tradition of the struggle against elapsing time, aimed to 
sequestering every natural self-motion (exogenism) to leave as
unique cause of any transformation the transcendental ground, creatrix
of the Universe. Of course Seto not either has the minimal idea of
this cultural history, that has been well explored and dismounted in
our remote tradition but, upon extrascientific reasons, remained
scarcely explored and even less divulged in the central countries.
Thus, our second remark is to point out the correct acknowledgement
by Seto of the absoluteness of time transformation and his incapaci-
ty of even minding of the problems which it entails for his embracing
the Pythagoric-Parmenidean line of thought.

Our third remark is the rightness of Seto's insight regarding the
involvement of vacuum features, exceeding collisional information,
in framing the dimensions for transformation of animal sentiences.
But his kinetized physics is absolutely unable of envisaging a
vacuum engineering, not even as Tsung-Dao Lee (Particule Phy-
sics and Field Theory, 1981, p. 826) or Julian Schwinger (Parti-
cles, Sources & Fields, vol. II, passim) did. Sato's theory is eviden-
tly an underdeveloped metaphysical raft drawing and by no means a
useful scientific contribution.

Our fourth remark is that the reduction of physicalities to atoms
and void has academically been thoroughly traced, in the history
of ideas, to the languages oppossing fluencies and staticities; so
the atomism of the Carvakas and later Democrit and Leucippus. Sato's
has no idea of the connection between his prefigurations and the
languages in which he thinks (Japanese has its own Pythagoric-Parme-
nidean prefigurations too, developed by common sociocultural reasons
to struggle against time). Perhaps studying the old work of Benjamin
Lee Whorf is worth to him in this regard.

Our fifth remark is that Seto shows to be completely unaware of the
fibrilarist explanations of the brain.  Though he aptly connects his
Pythagoric-Parmenidean kinetization with an updated Cartesian view
of "tourbillons" (which is not a scientific crime: also James Clerk
Maxwell found in such models a source of inspiration for his field
formulae), Sato mixes the Hallerian-Hartleyan-Kantian views of
vibrating strings with the Virchowian-based version of fluencies
versus staticities to set the problem of the ghost in the machine
and then prevail quixotically upon it.	I believe that he needs to
devote some years to study the history of ideas before trying again
to essay his forces in these matters, since before he does so he is
condemned to repeat these histories he ignores.


To enter in some other details, Sato's kinetization does not even
attempt to explain how a motion can generate a coupling!

It is also false that physicists have determined that in nature there
are gravitatory, electroweak and hadronic couplings.  We have physi-
cists here in our hylozoist tradition and of course all we acknowledge
that the sentient parenchyma forms contents interactive through	a
different coupling, in which it is centered the industrial interest 
in non-Turing automata; I mentioned already the U.K Patent 1,582,301
to give an example of such acknowledgement outside the kinetizing
exogenist traditions (which, I also agree, should disappear in one or
two decades).

It is also false that Einsteinian geometrodynamics puts spatialized
time due to a need of ruling out the concept of vacuum as a substance.
Surely Seto did not studied the long criticism in the academic Histo-
ry of Ideas of the notion of "substance", but certainly geometrodyna-
mics spatialized time-elapsing to serve the aforementioned cultural 
struggle against time of its Pythagoric-Parmenidean tradition, not
because any intrinsic need of generativity.

The uncancellableness of the experimental apparatuses' motion due to
microphysical cartesian "tourbillonness" was aptly discussed in the
XVIII century and also before (regarding Aristotle's explanation of
motion). Sato ought to argue upon a knowledge of such previous old
arguments, not renewing it without expounding his motives (against the
arguments he misses). 					  

The end part of the summary requires no elucidation in a Forum as
this one. I should only remark the connection among political power
and cults (not private religiosity), well instanced in the actions and
writings of both Marcus Aurelius and, on the other hand, Constantin,
and their role in furthering the Pythagoric-Parmenidean syncretic myth.
And, surely, I shall remark the end "naturalistic fallacy" (Moore,
1902) of the end words of Sato: no fact (even factually knowing the 
"will of God") is enough to jump from factual statements (there is this,
there occurs that...) and any injunctional ethical command (... then
you must do this, or that!!).  This is a most basic issue in the funda-
mentability of any ethics, well studied in every independent faculty
of philosophy!!

I think that Ken Sato is a sympathic, strong colleague that shall re-
cover from these unfavourable assessments of the communicated results
of his strivings.  Let me look forward to see him in some years more,
after having studied history of the ideas to de-construct his prefigu-
rations, trying again to contribute to our common scientific goals.
Without private labelings; with more empirical, reproducible findings!
I am sure this episode of Ken Sato's attempt to further science, was use-
ful for all us.
                      Cyberkisses for everyone!!
                                          Mariela

    *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
     Prof. Mariela Szirko,
     <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar> 
                             
     Neurobiology Res. Ctr., Ministry of Health & Welfare; and
     Electroneurobiology Res. Lab., Hospital "Dr. Jose Tiburcio Borda",
     Municipality of Buenos Aires City,  Argentine Republic.
           Office:  Phone/Fax (54 1) 306 -7314
                    e-mail <postmaster at neubio.gov.ar>
      Standard disclaimer: Este mensaje es personal
      y no compromete las dependencias a cargo del firmante
 Reply to THIS message,  ONLY to:  <postmaster at neubio.sld.ar>
 =*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list