Hey Craig! I think everyone who participates in this list has (to greater or lesser degrees), those 'cranksessive' motivations to understand reality, and ALL OF IT, with no remainder, (hence, the "everything" of the Everything list.) Also, I am quite sympathetic to your approach in solving it -- I don't think the problem of qualia can be swept away or dismissed as easily as some philosophers (i.e. Dan Dennett) want to do, and I subscribe to something like a panpsychic model of reality myself -- (please correct me if my construal of your theory isn't a version of panpsychism.) I would be sympathetic to someone who wanted to bring Leibniz to the table, because from what I understand of Leibniz (I studied Kant and Leibniz in my undergrad), he has something of a panpsychist view as well. But if one is going to contribute thoughts about Leibniz, let them be original and well-considered! Use scholarly apparatus. Show that you've read and understood previous Leibniz scholarship, and that you've understood the broader context of science in which Leibniz had his views and why they are compelling now in light of the massive changes in thought that modern science has wrought. The thing I appreciate about the posts you and others have made on the list, and why it is such a unique place (at least, until Roger came along) was that everyone here understood this about thinking -- that it was hard work and that we should try only to say that which is worth saying.
Even though I am sympathetic to the project of a theory of everything (as I think everyone who comes here is), I remain skeptical about the quality and degree of our cognitive resources in arriving at a complete explanation of the world that can encompass both the 'physical' and 'non-physical' (also probably like everyone who comes here -- I know John Mikes has expressed this before). Indeed, for me, I think the very dichotomy between the two is too often used uncritically. We take for granted that we "know what we mean" when we reference the "physical," and yet, aside from the (by convention) "non-physical" qualia that correspond to some inner experience, the "physical" boils down to things like needle deflections and numerical displays on measuring devices. So I don't think the distinction between the two is well-founded or has been properly thought through -- indeed, I see a lot of the work that you and Bruno and others do on the list as precisely being a way of thinking through this distinction or eliminating it entirely. That's why I get kind of frustrated when some goof stumbles into a reading list I used to really enjoy and start spouting off a bunch of ill-conceived nonsense that start with the difference between mind and matter as it was originally formulated centuries ago. Granted, there are still mysteries, but we know that simple dualistic models are off the table, and the most we can use terms like 'physical' and 'non-physical' for are placeholders or terms of art that await a fuller and more robust explanation in terms of SOME kind of monism or at least a dual-aspect theory. Then again, I'm quite open to an unqualified materialism, as well, if only someone could explain to me what that MEANT that could also leave open a possibility for awareness without resorting to calling awareness an illusion. What you find in Roger's posts, though, is a certain obliviousness to any kind of self-reflection or real thinking -- and that's why I don't think this list is the place for him. I am aware he posts in many other places on the internet -- I just want to convince him to keep his stuff there and away from here -- because I like it here, this is the only list on the entire internet I regularly visit. For my part, I have little original to contribute myself -- that's why I spend most of my time here lurking in the background. I'm more of a 'put my head into the heavens' guy that a 'get the heavens into my head' one. I enjoy engaging with the ideas on the list, but as a serious thinker yourself, I'm sure you have noticed that most of your engagement with an idea (like about 90% - 95% of it) involves being by yourself with it and working alone on it -- not relentlessly 'sharing' each iteration of your thought with people here --although, as you admit, some people on the list might disagree when it comes to your stuff ;-) But even in this case, you evince enough self-awareness to realize that others might find your posts too much, and I assume that's why you maintain your blog independently. BTW, I love your most recent post -- keep it up! I check your blog regularly, and if I have anything interesting to contribute, I'll let you know. But one thing I do know for sure is this list was a lot more fun to visit before the 'spammorhea,' as you put it -- and it's gotten to such a point that I feel it is worthy of ridicule. Cheers, Dan On Sunday, August 4, 2013 3:03:15 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > Thanks Freqflyer, > > It's interesting for me because in some respects, Roger seems like a > shadow version of myself in that we are both driven by a similar > cranksessive motivation to focus on the particulars of the Hard Problem. > Having had no exposure to speak of in philosophy generally or Leibniz in > particular, I have found, through Stephen P. King first, and then > continuing with Roger, that what I have come up with bears some strong > similarities to Leibniz' Monadology. There are several other philosophers, > scientists, and artists whose work I have discovered in the past few years > who I am also glad to have found after I had already developed my thoughts, > or I would have thought that I had plagiarized from them. This has been an > unexpected bonus of this hobby - learning about a lot of big ideas as they > come up, without having to digest a lot of other writing that I'm not > prepared to understand. > > Anyhow, my beef with Roger is primarily the spamorrhea tactics that he has > adopted, number one. I'm sure that I have bothered more than one person on > this list with my posts, but I have never tried fill up the list with my > topics intentionally. I may have interminable arguments, but hopefully they > are combined to one or two threads at a time. The second complaint I have > is his belligerent politicization. I'd be lying if I said I would feel the > same about an equally political poster who was not proselytizing regressive > bigotry, but even it he was someone who I can identify with politically, I > would still think 'dude, this isn't a good place for this...you're > embarrassing the cause.' > > The Leibniz posting is actually the least offensive part of the Roger > show, IMO - although it was probably enough sometime six months ago (which > I'm sure people feel about my posts as well). > > Where my hypothesis differs from Leibniz and Bruno is as follows: > > Leibniz (or Leibniz a la Clough) - > > "Why ? Consciousness is bipolar, consisting of a >> nonphysical-subject/physical- >> object pair, a true living subject looking at a spactime physical >> object." >> > > There are some important considerations here. > 1. If someone drinks a physical coffee object, their nonpysical-subject > experiences stimulation. If they take physical aspirin, their non-physical > headache pain goes away. While we can find examples such as psychosomatic > illness and placebo effect where the result may imply that the object is > influenced directly by the subject. This should tell us right away that > simplistic models of the relation between human consciousness, the brain, > awareness and matter are probably not an adequate place to start. We all > agree that magnetic stimulation of the brain can have direct and specific > effect on subjectivity, and that meditation can change neurological > behavior. > > 2. What would it mean for something non-physical to be directly > interacting with something physical? This seems to be the overlooked > elephant in the room since Descartes substance dualism. If Substance A can > interact with Substance B, then the two substances must either be aware of > each other, or they must share a third Substance C which is aware of > both...of course, Substance C has the same problem, it needs a Substance > C-A and a Substance C-B, and the infinite regress of homunculus > transduction protocols begins. > > > 3. In a dream, we can not easily tell that we are dreaming. Even in the > face of directly irrational circumstances, the feeling of realism can > persist without any notice. We can see and interact with things which are, > from our perspective within the dream, objects. What's the point of saying > you have separate fundamental substances if they interaction is > indistinguishable in many circumstances? Often our motives are compromised > by sub-conscious influence, but we can also do things like take drugs to > change our brain, or kill ourselves, which require a rather tortured > explanation to be portrayed as evolved behaviors. > > All of these suggest to me that the boundary between "physical" and > "non-physical" is scientifically meaningless. I don't think that we can > even say that there is anything non-physical, especially in light of > phenomena like synchronicity and quantum entanglement. To label something > metaphysical, non-physical, emergent, I think is to castigate the phenomena > and refuse to examine it intelligently. To me, this means understanding > that the nature of physics, while aesthetically divided on many levels into > public-facing and private-facing phenomena, and divided in an absolutely > perpendicular way (public bodies are nested additively from space , private > experiences are nested subtractively from eternity), physics, as a > pansensitive interaction, is an unbroken whole. Consciousness is not only > bipolar, it is divisible in multiple senses, although polarity is a > significant part of that theme and should not be overlooked. Object and > subject are more meaningful linguistically than scientifically. What is > real is public bodies and private experience. The dream basketball is like > a 'real' basketball except in the sense that the dream basketball cannot be > located in public. It is public vs private, or unity vs multiplicity which > united physics, mathematics, and subjective philosophy. > > > As far as Bruno goes, I admire all of the work that I have seen of his, > and had this been another time in my life and were I more mathematically > literate, I would very likely think that his solution is the right one. As > it stands instead, my understanding has taken a different path in which I > can clearly see that any assumption of quantifiable phenomena as primary > cannot be correct. I have tried many times to explain here that this is not > because I want it to be that way, or because I fear technology or love > humanity, but rather that I understand the difference between aesthetic > experiences in which there is perception and participation, and mechanical > functions in a low level phenomena is used as a device to simulate parts of > experiences. > > It's hard to show some people why this difference is real and why it is > important (others get it right away). Ironically, Roger's obsession with > monads are part of the solution. Leibniz is not the only thinker to > conceive of the universe as emerging within a singularity rather than > exploding out of it. Terms like Totality, the Abolute, Ein Sof, Tao, > Brahman, Aion, etc, all suggest the same kind of 180 degree pivot of the > assumption of universe as assembled objects. Once we try this cosmological > flip, we wind up with experiences that can be counted, rather than > countings which can simulate experience. The totality of arithmetic truth > fits in as a single two dimensional slice across eternity, a vanishingly > thin layer, but universal in a horizontal sense. The rest of the universe > can only be experienced directly. Arithmetic truth is the shadow of the > monad - the imposter, the anesthetic servant whose job it is to minimize > consciousness, and to make it disappear. > > Craig > > > > On Saturday, August 3, 2013 10:59:40 AM UTC-4, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >> >> Roger, >> >> Just because you perceive that people are 'wasting their time' by >> providing their own unique points of view on questions dear to their heart >> (and not, by the way, on rehashing simplistic strawmen positions of >> philosophers that lived during the Age of Enlightenment) does not give you >> licence to therefore go ahead and 'waste their time.' See, it's sloppy >> thinking like this that makes you unwelcome on this list, not the >> profundity of anything you say. >> >> What you have done is shown that you've mastered a grade school >> syllogism: >> >> I am a subject. >> These things in front of me are my objects. >> Where is my subject? It can't be an object! >> Conclusion: >> >> The world is at heart dualistic! And our subject is radically different >> than our objects! >> So we need some 'non-physical principle' to explain this mysterious >> subject >> (etc.) >> Therefore God...(etc) >> >> I'm not sure if you've been keeping up with the writing in the Western >> tradition of philosophy, or science (it was invented after Leibniz died), >> or if you just got bogged down in the 1700s with Leibniz et al., but this >> stuff is kind of old potatoes these days. What is far more fruitful (and >> fascinating, in my opinion) is how the brain arrives at a notion of >> subjectivity in the first place and how the brain works-- knowledge >> inferred from things like brain lesion studies and studies into perceptual >> self-deception. >> >> When Craig talks about multisense realism, that is an original theory he >> has formulated to try to unify the two realms of external, perceived >> objects (sensates) and the subjective feeling of what it is to be alive >> (sensation). On one level, sure, he's wasting time, just like all >> philosophically enjoyable work is a waste of time. As Bertrand Russell >> said: If you enjoyed the time you were wasting, then you weren't wasting it >> after all. But on another level, he is trying to do something original, to >> think something through deeply. He uses other thinkers as tools in a >> toolkit. And while lots of people don't agree with him, they enjoy his >> efforts, because he takes the time to work through challenging concepts. >> When Bruno talks about the UDA, he is also trying to do something >> similar. He is trying to unify the subjective and objective components of >> reality at the deeper level of arithmetic. He has an argument. He has >> something new to say. >> >> >> You are not an original thinker, Roger! You have become enamored by a >> stupid artifact of language having to do with subjects and objects, and >> something that has been far more poetically described by Zen masters than >> you could ever hope to do, and you hit us over the head with it like a dead >> fish. >> >> You have not stumbled upon some Lovecraftian truth about being by reading >> Leibniz. Your readings of Leibniz do not do him justice. Leibniz was a >> penetrating and original thinker who arrived at the idea of monads because >> it was forced on him by circumstances of knowledge AT THAT TIME. God was >> virtually an axiom due to the overwhelming power of the church, minds and >> brains were thought distinct because neurology hadn't been invented, and >> science was struggling to break free from its mold in the form of natural >> philosophy and Aristotelian thinking. Leibniz's thoughts were a reflection >> of the state of knowledge that existed at his time. For you to go own using >> your own watered down version of Leibniz as some kind of epistemological >> panacea is a waste of time in a totally different sense. In the realm of >> new ideas about the question of mind and consciousness, it contributes >> nothing. As Leibniz scholarship, it is atrocious and betrays a fundamental >> lack of understanding of the role of history in constructing ideas. >> >> Finally, your apology says nothing about your constant political bear >> baiting in a forum that has no use for it. >> >> It's not even that you talk about Leibniz so much that makes you a >> crackpot. It's that you have so little to say of any real value. Even here, >> though, you might get some sympathy, if it weren't for the fact that you >> have betrayed your bigotry and intolerance countless times on this list. >> You strike me as a particularly odious fellow, one whose sole joy in life >> is ruining things for everyone else. >> >> There are plenty of places on the world wide web for people like you. Try >> 4chan, for a start. But here... >> >> TROLL!!! BE GONE!!! >> >> >> >> On Saturday, August 3, 2013 8:44:04 AM UTC-4, Roger Clough wrote: >>> >>> Hi tintner michael and Albert Cororna, >>> >>> I am accused of wasting peoples' time by constantly posting >>> here and elsewhere on the subject of Leibniz. >>> >>> I do that because people are already wasting their time >>> by posting totally impossible views on what mind is or what >>> consciousness is, >>> supposedly the chief topics on these sites. >>> >>> Why ? The current model of the mind or brain >>> has no subject, only a description of a subject such as "subject". >>> which is not subjective but objective because it can be located in >>> spacetime >>> and described in words. >>> >>> You need a living, nonphysical, subjective subject. In fact life also >>> needs a living subject. >>> The same as is reading this paragraph. >>> >>> Why ? Consciousness is bipolar, consisting of a >>> nonphysical-subject/physical-object >>> pair, a true living subject looking at a spactime physical object. >>> >>> Only Kant and Leibniz take this criticism seriously, and of them, only >>> Leibniz >>> does it specifically. >>> >>> >>> >>> Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] >>> See my Leibniz site at >>> http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough >>> >>> >>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>> From: tintner michael >>> Receiver: MindBrain >>> Time: 2013-08-02, 07:17:50 >>> Subject: [Mind and Brain] Re: Why life is impossible to understand in >>> thematerialistic model of e >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >I suspect this is a matter of perspective. >>> > >>> >You're assuming that the current materialistic model is the only >>> possible >>> >such model, rather than merely an "early evolution" model of >>> materialism. >>> > >>> >Science is still looking at the world as materialistic pieces/parts. It >>> >does not yet have a true holistic, integrated materialistic model of >>> the >>> >world, which understands how the parts fit together to form wholes. It >>> >doesn't understand "self" - how the living machine that is a human >>> being >>> >can continuously configure and reconfigure its body as very >>> >different wholes - how a Peter Sellers can assume a myriad >>> >roles/personalities/bodies. It doesn't understand the mechanics of >>> >evolution - how bodies can be "reconfigured"/transformed into radically >>> >different forms other bodies. >>> > >>> >This is not surprising. So far we have only created machines that are >>> >"production lines" of parts - basically Rube Goldberg lines of parts >>> moving >>> >each other like lines of dominoes. We haven't created - have barely >>> >conceived of - machines that are truly integrated wholes like living >>> >creatures. >>> > >>> >When we start acquiring holistic materialistic models, I suspect your >>> >problems/objections will disappear. >>> > >>> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.