Serge Patlavskiy

L'viv, Ukraine

Someone is shy

Serge hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Favorite talks

Comments & conversations

207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 23 days ago
Donald Hoffman: Do we see reality as it is?
"Reality as it is" -- it is Noumenal Reality. We cannot see it in principle, and we can only postulate its existence. Due to seeing, hearing, etc. every person constructs in mind his/her personal version of the model of Noumenal Reality. The model of Noumenal Reality is called Phenomenal Reality. Therefore, for me, the very question "Do we see reality as it is?" is incorrect in principle.
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 5 months ago
Rebecca Saxe: How we read each other's minds
[Noz Urbina]: "Besides the fact that "exemplar" is redundant when you've already said "its"..." The word "exemplar" is not redundant, especially when we have to formulate the Law of Conservation of Consciousness. In my formulation this law states: 1) one complex self-organizing system (either a natural living organism or an artificial structure) possesses only one exemplar of consciousness; 2) all such systems possess the exemplars of consciousness that are equal in terms of their natural mechanisms, so their potentialities; 3) the total number of all the exemplars of consciousness in Reality is limited and conserves. [Noz Urbina]: "That's why the researchers were using other people to study consciousness - test subjects and the children - not self-studying." The third-person research strategy is good for Physics and Neurophysiology, while when studying consciousness we have to make use of the first-person research strategy. The case is that to study anything scientifically, we have to apply the methods and instruments that correspond to the nature of the object of study. As it stands, the most adequate instrument when studying consciousness is consciousness itself. So, the consciousness researcher uses his/her consciousness simultaneously as an instrument of study and as an object of study. And in this the field of consciousness studies cardinally differs from other research fields. If you take an interest in theoretical matters of consciousness studies, subscribe to Yahoo! jcs-online forum here http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/jcs-online Thanks for your questions.
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 7 months ago
Rebecca Saxe: How we read each other's minds
Rebecca: "I'm going to assume that many people in this audience have a mind, and that I don't have to worry about this." Every alive organism, to stay alive, must necessarily possess its exemplar of consciousness. Rebecca: "And put another way, the crux of the problem is the machine that we use for thinking about other minds, our brain, is made up of pieces, brain cells, that we share with all other animals, with monkeys and mice and even sea slugs." To think about other minds we use not a machine, but our consciousness. It is not a brain that thinks. It is the organism as a whole complex system that possesses its exemplar of consciousness, and, thereby, can think. By the way, thinking about other minds does not differ from thinking about, say, a climate change -- in both cases we apply third-person research strategy. So, the very idea that there exists "a special brain region for thinking about other people's thoughts" is nothing but an unadulterated nonsense, as well as the very field of cognitive neuroscience. Science is there where we apply appropriate instruments and research strategies. Neuroscience studies the brain using a voltmeter, while to study his consciousness a researcher has to use his consciousness as an instrument of studying, thereby realizing the first-person research strategy.
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 8 months ago
Ramsey Musallam: 3 rules to spark learning
The State or Government funds (or pays for) the teaching system with the aim to have the citizens of required level of education and attitude to life. The academic performance (or the results of teaching) always depends on cumulative efforts of three participants: a teacher, a student, and a society. A teacher may be characterized by his/her professional skills and innate predisposition for teaching work (I mean, whether he/she loves the kids or not, etc.). The students may be characterized by, or subsumed under three main categories as follows: 1) those who do not want to be taught (they think they already know what they need to know), and their credo is: "Leave me alone and I will sit quietly during your lessons"; 2) those who want to be taught and attend school with joy because of having good time as during the lessons, when communicating with schoolmates during the breaks, so participating in various hobby groups, history/physics circles, art/literary societies, etc. 3) those who acquire knowledge in autodidactic manner (they attend school for pro forma, and work hard themselves or with the aid of private tutors). As to society, namely, its attitude to teaching system, it may or may not stimulate good academic performance by establishing a direct dependence between having a sound knowledge and a chance to get a highly paid job after school. So, having got the same (good) overall results of teaching, they could be achieved under different conditions. Namely: 1) there may be a good teacher, but bad students, and bad society; 2) there may be a good teacher, bad students, and good society; 3) there may be a bad teacher, bad students, but good society; 4) there may be a bad teacher, good students, and good society; 5) there may be a good teacher, good students, and bad society; and 6) they all may be good. If they all are bad, then the results of teaching will be surely bad. So, the real situation is much more complex than as presented in this TED talk.
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 8 months ago
Ramsey Musallam: 3 rules to spark learning
Curiosity, asking questions, and trying to do/ to test something in practice -- they are three activities that ALL the normal children do every day while growing up, whether they are or not at school. So, the presenter is just stating the obvious. By the way, the experiments he demonstrates (those with glasses) are from Physics, but not from Chemistry.
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 9 months ago
Patricia Kuhl: The linguistic genius of babies
Patricia Kuhl: "During the production of speech, when babies listen, what they're doing is taking statistics on the language that they hear." For me, it would be better to say that babies are not "taking statistics" of distribution of sounds in the language they listen to, but perceiving the melodiousness of the language, thereby perceiving the language as a whole complex system (like a song; we can sing a song even without understanding its words). And babies do this not at age 6 of months, but long before the birth -- yet while staying in their mother's womb and listening to their mother's singing. By the way, a perception or learning of a song does not require the use of "sophisticated reasoning" (by which we normally mean "making analysis"). "Taking statistics" or "making analysis" presumes dividing the whole into parts, and this is what adults do while learning a foreign language. That is why the adults (at large) have fewer capabilities for studying foreign languages. The babies first learn how to sing in a language, and, only afterwards, they learn how to speak in that language. To perceive the melodiousness of the language yet before the birth is a necessary condition of making good progress in studying that language after birth. http://serge7patlavskiy.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/do-you-believe-in-life-after-birth/
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 9 months ago
Stephen Wolfram: Computing a theory of all knowledge
As I show in my research on the theory of cellular automata (see http://generaltheory.webs.com/Ring-of-rules.pdf), among the elementary 256 rules there is no one SIMPLE rule that would give COMPLEX space-time distribution. Having applied some special and strict criteria of simplicity and complexity I have found that: (1) there are 64 rules that are simple and such one that give simple (or, mirror-symmetric) space-time diagrams; (2) there are 160 complex rules that give complex space-time diagrams; (3) there are 32 rules, which, despite of being themselves complex, all the same give simple space-time diagrams; and (4) there is not any simple rule that would give complex space-time diagram. Therefore, Wolfram's "discovery" that simple rules produce all the complexity of our World (including consciousness) is, speaking mildly, not correct.
207524
Serge Patlavskiy
Posted 9 months ago
Nancy Kanwisher: A neural portrait of the human mind
"Change is language of matter. Matter becomes aware by changes alone,..." "To be conscious is to be effected..." "There is a third type of change can be called as cognitive change..." Shaikh, I find your views on consciousness very original. So, if you take a trouble to find my email address (for example, from here http://serge7patlavskiy.wordpress.com/), then we could discuss these questions in private.