Hi Bruno Marchal I was trying to make monads more understandable, I realize that chips are finite.
The philosophies of Plotinus Leibniz are built on L's different logics. a) The philosophy of Plotinus folllows what Leibniz calls the logic of reason or necesssity. Heavenly, unchangingly always either true or false. b) The philosophy of Leibniz focusses on the the earth-bound logic of contingency, where time plays a role. Sometimes true, sometimes false. So I don't think Plotinus is applicable at all for the world in time-- biology, man and the brain -- as he does not seem to speak of life or living objects (such as all monads are). Or change itself, because the world of Plotinus is essentially dead: the unchanging Kingdom of Heaven (unchanging, eternal). Plotinus is a follower of course of Plato and the Kingdom of Heaven, but we also have to consider the actual, entelechic (and thus goal-oriented), changing, imperfect, contingent world that we live in, the Kingdom of Earth. I have not mentioned it previously, but for L, dead things are driven deterministically as in physics, that is, efficiently (from before) or, in contrast, living things are pulled forward to justify final causes or goals (Aristotle). Life has purpose and is goal-oriented. Eschatologiocal. The end of time, the Big implosion. Dead objects are slaves to entropy, living objects eat entropy. Leibniz, following Aristotle, oin the other hand, specifically speaks of change (inherent and continuous in all monads). So he could not be more different than Plotinus. In fact, Leibniz's whole philosophy might be considered as a philosophy of change. Change which opely happens here in this contingent Kingdom of Earth. The drive of this change is called appetition and entelechy. Yes, entelechy and many of Leibniz's ideas are basically Aristotelian. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/18/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-18, 07:11:59 Subject: Re: Monads as computing elements On 18 Aug 2012, at 03:40, Roger wrote: Monads as computing elements, the supreme monad as the central processing computer chip. I think that Leibniz's monads are in some ways similar to computer calculations, for they exist in logical, rather than physical space, and all are capable of communications to various extents. If I might say it this way, they exist in holographic space, just as many think the mind exists in the brain. Each monad contains a knowledge of all or most but with limited resoljution (clarithy of vision). Monads are inherently blind, but constantly changing, the Supreme monad of all (God or perhaps a computer chip) God is infinite (except for the early greeks). A chip is finite. So ... constantly and instantly updating their "perceptions" to reflect the perceptions of all the other monads, so that each monad contains in principle a complete knowledge of the universe -- the universe being made up entirely of monads. But an imperfect knowledge. Why imperfect ? Each monad is a passive, near-sighted homunculus. The distances between monads have to do with their similarities and the "perceptions" given to them by intellect and vision , and all monads have some weaknesses of vision (being near-sighted). And clarity of vision drops off with distances (differences between monads). Because of these imperfections, the monadic computer could operate somewhat perfectly in communication with "nearby"monads but imperfectly with regard to the whole computing program. This all happening in a sea of perfect harmony. In a contingent computing world. I appreciate your effort to look in a comp perspective, but I have searched a long time how to intepret Leibniz in comp, and I have not find a simple way to do that. Plotinus is far easier. Leibniz does not seem to be able to abandon a big part of Aristotelianism, I think, although, as a coherent reasoner, he is aware of the tension, and is very often close to a comp-coherent picture. Up to now, I would still try to interpret the monads by the natural number, perhaps, more simply. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
