Gabriel Vacariu

An old philosophical problem, the mind-body problem, has not been yet solved by philosophers or scientists. Even if in cognitive neuroscience has been a stunning development in the last 20 years, the mind-body problem remained unsolved. Even if the majority of researchers in this domain accept the identity theory from an ontological viewpoint, many of them reject this position from an epistemological viewpoint. In this context, I consider that it is quite possible the framework of this problem to be wrong and this is the main reason the problem could not be solved. I offer an alternative, the epistemologically different worlds perspective, that replace the world or the universe. In this new context, the mind-body problem becomes a pseudo-problem.

The reason why, since Descartes, nobody has found a solution to the mind–body problem seems to be that the problem itself is a false or pseudo-problem. The discussion has proceeded within a pre-Cartesian conceptual framework which itself is a source of the difficulty. Dualism and all its alternatives have preserved the same pre-Cartesian conceptual framework even while denying Descartes’ dualism. In order to avoid this pseudo-problem, I introduce a new perspective with three elements: the subject, the observed object, and the conditions of observation (given by the internal and external tools of observation). On this new perspective, because of the conditions of observation, the mind and the brain belong to epistemologically different worlds.

The actual approaches of Cognitive Science offer a partial explanation of cognition. In this paper, our main point is to catch some key elements from these approaches, that can be taken together in a future perspective for a better explanation of cognition. The key elements (levels of analysis, primitives, processes, structures, threshold,self-organisation, bidirectionality, emergency, habituation, tasks, theinteraction between levels and also the interactions between the elements of the cognitive system and the environment) help us to stress the need of the representations. Then, we arediscussing the following dichotomies: procedural-declarative,consciousness-unconsciousness, implicit-explicit. Finally, we will try to motivate the necessity of an abstract theory of representation in Cognitive Science.``The sensitive things aren't, but the ideas are''.Plato.

I am Gabriel Vacariu (Philosophy, Bucharest Univ.). My main idea is that of EDWs (“epistemologically different worlds”) in 2002-2003, 2005, 2007, 16 books 2008-2024 (2016, a book at SPRINGER, Germany!): the Universe/world does not exist. there are, instead, the EDWs like the macro-EW, the micro-EW, the field-EW or the mind-EW. (Each mind is an EW, “epistemological world”). My EDWs perspective furnishes an alternative to many problems from Cognitive Neuroscience, Physics and Philosophy: the mind-brain problem, all quantum problems (entanglement, nonlocality, etc.), emergence, levels, etc. - The main rule: One EW does not exist for any EDW. For instance, the macro-EW does not exist for the micro-EW the mind-EW does not exist for the brain/body (an entity in the macro-EW). The electromagnetic field is an entity which belongs to the field-EW, while the microparticles belong to the micro-EW. - The main notion: “correspondence” (no ontological status): 1) the mind corresponds to the brain/body (and its interactions with environment). 2) two microparticles (the micro-EW) correspond to one electromagnetic wave/field (the field-EW). 3) a table (the macro-EW) corresponds to an huge amalgam of microparticles (the micro-EW). - The observer, detector, microparticle is not, really, in quantum entanglement with another microparticle. In the micro-EW, that entanglement could not have any ontological status. HOWEVER, those two particles correspond to an electromagnetic wave/field which belongs to the field/wave-EW. So, there are ED entities (like microparticles and waves) which belong to the EDWs. For those two electrons and the distance between them (1km or 1 billion kms, it does not matter at all) between those two electrons (all belong to the micro-EW), there is the "corresponding" wave (which belong to the field-EW). So, entanglement is exactly this correspondence which does not have any ontological status... - In this way, I solved the mind-brain problem (it is a pseudo-problem since the mind does not exist for the brain/body!), all problems of quantum mechanics (entanglement and nonlocality), Einstein's general relativity (it refers to the planets, entities which belong to the macro-EW) vs. Quantum Mechanics (regarding quantum, there are at least two EDWs, the micro-EW and the field-EW), emergence (any kind), supervenience, self, life, etc. (Many people have already PLAGIARIZED my ideas!) In our book 2016, I indicated there is no “dark matter”/“energy”, no “spacetime”. - I rejected the “Big Bang” as being the first process, there were EDWs before the many Big Bangs (13.82 billions years ago)...

The main ideas of the EDWs perspective are in Gabriel Vacariu’s PhD thesis posted online by UNSW (Australia) in 2007!!! I have realized the GREATEST discovery in the history of human knowledge: the EDWs! With discovering the EDWs, I have changed everything in Philosophy, Physics and Cognitive Neuroscience! This has been the main reason, so many people have published UNBELIEVABLE similar ideas to my ideas, many years I published my first works! UNBELIEVABLE, many (hundreds) “great” or small thinkers did the same thing in 2006-2007 and later: they published the same ideas, UNBELIEVABLE similar to my ideas from 2002-2005! They believe they would be considered co-authors of the same new framework of thinking. They did not know that many “professors” would do the same thing: they plagiarized my ideas and they hurry up to published their work as soon as possible (in 2006-2007, depending when they discovered my article 2005). So, in the same 2 years, many people “discovered” the same new framework of thinking, the EDWs perspective, each of them did not think that there would be so many other people doing the same thing, that is, many people “discovered” the same new framework (the greatest challenge in the history of human thinking!) in the same period! Such coincidences (the discovery of the EDWs in the same two years!!!) are quite IMPOSSIBLE!! This is the reason nobody quoted my name, but nobody quoted any name who PLAGIARIZED my ideas… In 2006-2007, I was wondering why nobody quote my name, but in fact, they plagiarized my ideas. Nobody discovered this framework of thinking 2500 years, and in 2-3 years, many people discovered it!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!! There were some "professors" who published articles/chapters very close to Bohr's complementarity, Dirac, de Broglie's dualism before 2005 (for instance Carlo Rovelli 1996 or Ladyman), but their works were constructed within the "unicorn world" (Universe/world), therefore, these works had nothing in common with the EDWs perspective!!!! In reality, all of them plagiarized my ideas! It was like many people composed Beethoven Fifth’s Symphony, claiming that they never listen Beethoven! Who would be so stupid to believe them?

Working on the mind-brain problem (cognitive science, quantum mechanics, Einstein, etc.) for many years as student and professor, in 2002, I discovered the Epistemologically Different Worlds, a new alternative to the mind brain problem. In the same day, I realized all problems from quantum mechanics are dissolved by my EDWs. I immediately understood that my discovery is the greatest discovery in the history of human thinking. But I did not anticipate how many great problems I would have exactly because of my discovery (!), problems created by human beings, i.e. Bastards.

Working on the mind-brain problem (cognitive science, quantum mechanics, Einstein, etc.) for many years as student and professor, in 2002, I discovered the Epistemologically Different Worlds, a new alternative to the mind brain problem. In the same day, I realized all problems from quantum mechanics are dissolved by my EDWs. I immediately understood that my discovery is the greatest discovery in the history of human thinking. But I did not anticipate how many great problems I would have exactly because of my discovery (!), problems created by human beings, i.e. Bastards.

Something amazing happened to me: in my book 2010, I have written about smolin’s book 2002 ‘Three roads to Quantum Gravity’. In 2017, smolin wrote the third edition of this book with revision and adding’ some material. Apparently nothing surprisingly… However, when I saw a commentary on his book 2017, I realized that these ‘revision and adding’ material introduces UNBELIEVABLE similarities between smolin’s new ideas (2017) and my ideas (2002-2008…including 2016a)! The problem is that these new ideas a completely NEW comparing with all his ideas from the previous editions. The question arises immediately: ‘Why smolin introduced these ESSENTIAL ideas (which represent a NEW FRAMEWORK OF THINKING very similar to my EDWs perspective) 15 years later than the first edition?’ He named this new framework ‘relationalism’ (apparently the same name used by carlo rovelli in the past 1995) but who also came with a new relationalism very closed to my EDWs perspective in the same YEAR 2017! What is the probability lee smolin to introduce so many similar ideas to my ideas in 2017? The probability is ZERO!

Many ideas from Georg Nortoff’s works (published one paper in 2010, mainly his book in 2011, other papers in 2012, 2103, 2014, especially those related to Kant’s philosophy and the notion of the “observer”, the mind-brain problem, default mode network, the self, the mental states and their “correspondence” to the brain) are surprisingly very similar to my ideas published in my article from 2002, 2005 and my book from 2008. In two papers from 2002 (also my paper from 2005 and my book 2008), following Kant’s philosophy, I introduced the notion of the “observer” for the mind-brain problem. After 2010 (mainly his book 2011 and other papers after this book), Nortoff also uses Kant’s philosophy (even if his knowledge about Kant’s philosophy is very superficial!) and the notion of the “observer” for the mind-brain problem in a methodology very similar to my methodology. Moreover, instead of EDWs, Nortoff uses a kind of “transdisciplinary” view, quite close to parallelism – the closest approach to my EDWs! In his works until 2014, Northoff’s conclusion within the unicorn world was different than my conclusion. However, in his book 2014 (two volumes) using notions like “correlations” and even “correspondences” many times, his conclusion is very closed to my EDWs! This dramatic change of framework in 3 years is quite unbelievable!!! Incredible many ideas from this book are very similar to my ideas from 2005 and 2008!