Hi Stephen P. King The supreme monad (God) does everything (God causes all to happen) while the monads, being entirely passive, can do nothing except display the changes that God made for them as what is called their individual "perceptions", meaning the universe from their own points of view.
This is another way of saying that effectively (not actually) each man-monad is a self who (but through God) sees "all" in the phenomenal world from his own point of view. Here "all" is limited or filtered by the capabilities and biases of the man. Roger Clough, [email protected] 9/18/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-17, 11:26:51 Subject: Re: The poverty of computers On 9/17/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > > Monads are not rigidly separated. > So change in one mind is reflected in all, > the extent being how capable the others are of reading > the content and their similarity to the subject. Dear Roger, Your defiction is what we get if we ignore the computational resources that are required by a mind. I am taking the resource requirement into account and thus showing that the mind does not 'always" reflect all others. Only God's mind is free of contraint as it is the totality of existence itself. > > > Roger Clough, [email protected] > 9/17/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him > so that everything could function." > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: Stephen P. King > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-09-16, 11:34:14 > Subject: Re: The poverty of computers > > > On 9/16/2012 8:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: >> Hi Stephen P. King >> >> Not sure I understand your objection, but >> faith, being subjective (hence personal) >> is at least to first order principally in one individual. > Dear Roger, > > There is more to say! > >> At the same time, however, since >> Mind is nonlocal, there has to be some >> spillover from other minds of like thinking. > Yes! But we need a way of modeling this idea. I have tried with a > concept of "bisimulation" but it seems that the symbolic representation > that some friends and I have put together is incomprehensible and > anti-intuitive for others... :_( I think of this "spillover" as the > ability to have multiple expression "of the same thing". We can > represent this as what occurs when several independent computers, each > with their own language and grammar, have an equivalence relation such > that something that one does (computes) is "the same as" something that > another does (computes). If two computers perform exactly the same set > of computations then we say that they are *exactly* bisimilar. If there > is only a few or one computation that they can both perform then there > is a bisimulation between them. > We then ask if it is possible for that one computation (that is > bisimilar) in each to be related (by some transformation(s)) to some or > all of the other computations (that are in the collection of possible > computations ( a "repertoire") that each can perform). If there does > exist a transformation or sequence of transformations, then there is a > way of transforming the pair into each other iff that transformation(s) > can be implemented on both of them. > >> According to the monadology, also, an >> individual with his "perceptions" >> has a limited ability to see into the >> future. > I see this as the result of the limits on computational resources > available to the observer (monad). I can see the past because I have > (locally) already generated my computational simulation of it and have a > trace of that computation in my memory. I cannot observe what I have not > computed yet! > >> >> Roger Clough, [email protected] >> 9/16/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him >> so that everything could function." >> > Am I making any sense at all? > > -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
