Elements of Mathematical Logic for Consistency Analysis of Axiomatic Sets in the Mind-Body Problem

In Critical Neuroscience and Philosophy A Scientific Re-Examination of the Mind-Body Problem. London: (2020)
  Copy   BIBTEX


(...) However, whether we chose a weak or strong approximation, the set would not make any sense at all, if (once more) this choice would not be justified in either temporal or spatial sense or given the context of possible applicability of the set in different circumstances. This would obviously represent a dualism in itself as we would (for instance) posit and apply a full identity-equality-equivalence of x and y when applying Newtonian physics to certain observations we make (it would be the case of neural correlates), and we would posit and apply a non - identity-equality-equivalence of x and y when applying Quantum mechanics to other observations. Following this dualism in and of theories, the same sate would need to be slightly modified: U2:(x~y)∪(x≈y); U3:(x~y)∩(x≈y); U4a:(x~y)⊆(x≈y) vs. U4b:(x~y)⊇(x≈y)

Author's Profile

David Tomasi
Vermont Academy of Arts and Sciences


Added to PP

52 (#79,522)

6 months
49 (#41,132)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?