Hi Craig Weinberg 

According to the Monadology, all monads are alive.
Even rocks, which are nearly dead.

Leibniz is indeed frustratingly difficult,
but contrary to (some of ) your comments on the Monadology
on the link below, I can't recall a single error. 

Just to take your criticism of Monodology 1:

"1. My topic here will be the monad, which is just a simple
substance. By calling it ‘simple’ I mean that it has no parts,
though it can be a part of something composite.
It is a bit confusing right off the bat. To say that a something is a substance 
in a colloquial sense implies already that is a ‘thing’ distinct from other 
things. What I am after is a much deeper simplicity. To me a true monad could 
only be a boundaryless unity. An everythingness-nothingness ‘carrier-tone’ of 
experiential readiness from which all experiences are diffracted (divided from 
within, as ‘chips off the old block’, so to speak). This is what I mean by the 
Big Diffraction. The monad itself has no parts, but its only nature is the 
possibility that it imparts. My version of monad does not ‘exist’ as a simple 
substance but rather it insists as the simplicity and essential wholeness of 
all experiences. It is sense."
It turns out that, upon further analysis, all substances have to be inextended,
because all material substances, being extended, are divisible, which
in the end gives you nothing.   As to the fundamental particles, 
my footnote here is that while these are not divisble,
the Uncertainty Principle in the end gives you nothing fixed you can point
to, so even these are not substances.





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 14:14:50
Subject: Re: While computers are causal, life is not causal.




On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:12 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Craig Weinberg 

While computers are causal, perception is not causal. 
Nothing that living things do is causal. They have an
uncaused first or governing cause called the self. 
Thus life does not have to be causal and isn't.

I don't see it as being so cut and dried. What about a virus? Is that a living 
thing? How about a crystal? I see more of a step-like spectrum from physical to 
chemical to organic to biological to zoological and anthropological. Living 
things seem like they do some causal things to me? They seek food when their 
bodies run low. They grow hair when and where their genes cause it to grow.

I agree that perception is not causal, although the elaboration of perception 
from one individual or species to another can be causal. When we say life, I 
think that we just mean phenomena which we can relate to and identify with - 
and that capacity to identify or disidentify is there for a reason. I think 
though that the reason is not absolute but relative. All living organisms could 
disappear from the cosmos forever and the universe would still be full of 
memory, pattern, and experience...just on scales of time and space that are 
very unfamiliar to us.



Monads operate in such a fashion. They are not 
causal except if that is desired or needed.

Huge difference. 


Did Leibniz think that non-living things were not composed of monads?

Here is my look at Monadology if you are interested: 
http://multisenserealism.com/2012/07/14/notes-on-monadology/

Craig
 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
----- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 08:12:21
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence




On Friday, August 31, 2012 6:08:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 


On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:07, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal 

The burden of proof, IMHO lies on those who claim that
computers are alive and conscious. What evidence is there for that ?


The causal nature of all observable brains components. (empirical evidence)





What about the biological nature of all observable brain components? Much more 
compelling since it is a change in the biological status of the brain as a 
whole living organ which marks the difference between life and death, not the 
presence or absence of logic circuits.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/M49PjD4y4QwJ.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rypjXKjozuYJ.
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.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to