On 07 Dec 2012, at 01:21, Russell Standish wrote:
Re the thread title: it appears the introspection is quite a difficult
task, contrary to how it seems. But people are working on the
problem. See Brian Scassellati's web page:
http://cs-www.cs.yale.edu/homes/scaz/Research.html
particularly
On 07 Dec 2012, at 13:04, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen,
I think that's just more materialist wishful thinking, because mind
and body
are completely different substances,
In the plato sense? OK. (hypostase is better than substance in this
case, as subtance is often considered as
On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:18, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
1) We in fact agree about what 1p is, except IMHO it is the
Supreme Monad viewing the world THROUGH an individual's
1p that I would call the inner God. Or any God.
2) Previously I dismissed numbers as being monads because I
On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:33, Roger Clough wrote:
Obviously, I meant the natural integers, not the natural numbers,
whatever they be.
Natural numbers = the non negatiove integers: 0, 1, 2, 3,
or 0, s(0), s(s(0)), ...
Bruno
- Have received the following content -
Sender:
On 07 Dec 2012, at 14:57, Roger Clough wrote:
Here's an additional observation-- Only the prime numbers can be
monads,
because all other integers can not be subdivided and still remain
integers.
Hmm... numbers are monad when seen as index of a partial computable
function. the
On 07 Dec 2012, at 18:33, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Doing the experience yourself
Which one is yourself after duplication?
One of them with P = 1/2.
That neatly sums up the entire problem,
Indeed.
the insistence that there is only
On 08 Dec 2012, at 00:23, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/7/2012 1:57 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 Dec 2012, at 01:51, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 12/5/2012 1:01 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
L's monads have perception.
They sense the entire universe.
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Roger
Hi Russell Standish
He's talking about psychological introspection using
everyday language and concepts. Philosophical
introspection a la Kant for example, is more formal
and precise and uses formal categories.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially
Hi Stephen P. King
The supreme monad is as necessary as the CPU of a computer,
for Leibniz's world is a system, and systems need a control unit.
BTW, the materialist mind/brain has no such governor.
I could go on and on, for every part of Leibniz's metaphysics is necessary.
and follows
Hi Stephen P. King
I agree. Leibniz's causation is similar in action to Hume's
and is really just synchronization via the Supreme Monad,
which is the sufficient reason missing from Hume.
Hume merely attributes causation to our conventional
way of thinking. That doesn't explain anything.
[Roger
Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
You and I seem to differ principally, if I understand you corrrectly,
in that you believe in local
Hi Stephen P. King
Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent
collisions, keep oil and water separate.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P.
Hi Richard Ruquist
That's understandable because of L's terminology.
The individual perceptions are continually updated by the supreme monad,
which is necessary so that all the perceptions of all
of the monads are properly synchronized.
The anology would be that a CPU is needed to synchronize
Stephen,
Perhaps my response to Richard, immediately below,
would explain better to you why I believe a supreme monad
(a CPU) is needed.
- Have received the following content -
Sender: Roger Clough
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 07:24:56
Subject: Re: Re: WHOOPS! The
Hi Richard Ruquist
You say, God is the totality of all Monads and its creation is
expressed on and in all of them.
God is the agent that carries out this expression,
for only He knows what they all are.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near
Roger,
In order to get a cosmic consciousness, an arithmetic of monads is
required. No one monad has consciousness as L has said. Therefore
isince God is one monad, it cannot be conscious and IMO therefore
cannot be god.
Richard
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Roger, That sounds to me as though it is something you made up. Richard
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 7:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Stephen,
Perhaps my response to Richard, immediately below,
would explain better to you why I believe a supreme monad
(a CPU) is needed.
-
Hi Stephen P. King
For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to
Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad
has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads,
but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the Supreme
Monad).
Tre Supreme Monad is needed to keep
Bruno Marchal said
They are logically interacting though.
Right. Which is only possible if both mind and body (brain) are
treated as mind, which is what L did with his monads.
Materialism treats them both as body, which is nonsensical.
So L's solution to the mind/brain problem (Chalmer's
Hard
Stephan,
I do assume simultaneity within the monads for the very reasons you
specify plus a few more like it makes Cramer's Transactional Analysis
instantaneous and Feymann's QED as well. Quantum Electrodynamics is
the most accurate theory compared to experiment extant yet is based on
particles
Roger,
BECs make that interaction possible.
Don't you ever rad my posts?
Richard
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Bruno Marchal said
They are logically interacting though.
Right. Which is only possible if both mind and body (brain) are
treated as
Hi Bruno Marchal
By universal numbers are you referring to the numbers
as seen by Pythagoras ? I'm a little hesistant to get
into that stuff or anything esoteric since becoming a Christian.
There is a short video of these at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7AyNFpJ6DA
[Roger Clough],
Hi Richard Ruquist
Yes, as I said, it's just an analogy.
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 07:51:05
Hi Richard Ruquist
Didn't you just make that up ?
[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net]
12/8/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-12-08, 08:20:14
Subject:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was
not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is
who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad.
L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's simply cosmic intelligence
or the One.
[Roger
No Roger,
The BEC properties are known from laboratory experiment.
For example, light can skip thru a BEC at infinite speed,
leaving the BEC as it enters,
or light can be stopped and started in a BEC.
My opinion is that a BEC is effectively outside of spacetime.
I am not alone in that opinion.
Roger,
Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not
need a god outside of themselves.
Richard
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:40 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was
not technically correct,
2012/12/8 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 12/7/2012 6:01 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Fantastic links, specially the latter. I´ll read it.
This is my standpoint now:
First is necessary to define existence. My standpoint is that what
exists is what the mind assumes that exist
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent
collisions, keep oil and water separate.
No they don't. The separation of oil and water is just the macroscopic
outcome of local
On 12/8/2012 6:49 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
The supreme monad is as necessary as the CPU of a computer,
for Leibniz's world is a system, and systems need a control unit.
Dear Roger,
Is this a postulation, a conjecture or an authoritative claim? The
way that the physical
On 12/8/2012 7:16 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me. And my apologies for calling you a
an atheist/materialist. I seem to have been having a bad day.
Dear Roger,
It is OK, we all have our 'bad days'. :-)
On 12/8/2012 7:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent
collisions, keep oil and water separate.
Dear Roger,
What determines the property of immiscibility of oil and water? I
am asking you to consider the nature of
On 12/8/2012 7:24 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
That's understandable because of L's terminology.
The individual perceptions are continually updated by the supreme monad,
which is necessary so that all the perceptions of all
of the monads are properly synchronized.
The anology would
On 12/8/2012 8:02 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to
Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad
has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads,
but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the Supreme
Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except for
yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic explanation (=a joke).
I deny to be an atheist because one would need a God to deny and I do not
detect the concept for such. Also: when you wrote
* I am claiming
On 08 Dec 2012, at 13:16, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
You're right, I short-changed Bruno. He is actually
an Idealist like me.
Hmm... First I am silent on my beliefs. I am just a logician who say
if you believe this (that you can survive with an artificial digital
brain, Comp
On 08 Dec 2012, at 13:24, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
That's understandable because of L's terminology.
The individual perceptions are continually updated by the supreme
monad,
which is necessary so that all the perceptions of all
of the monads are properly synchronized.
The
Bruno:
how about expanding our closed (mathematical) minds into not only decimal,
binary, etc., but also a (hold on fast!) 12/17ary number systems?
in that case 17 would be non-primary, divisible by 2,3,4,6 besides the 1.
Just playing my mind on math. (You may have an even wider mind). Also zero
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:02, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
For what it's worth, I think Richard referred to
Indra's Beads in connection with this problem. Every monad
has its own myriad set of perceptions of the other monads,
but these are indirect (are constantly updated by the
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:23, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
By universal numbers are you referring to the numbers
as seen by Pythagoras ? I'm a little hesistant to get
into that stuff or anything esoteric since becoming a Christian.
Good!
No, by universal numbers I mean a code for a
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:40, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Richard Ruquist
Referring as I did sometimes to the supreme monad as God was
not technically correct, only a shorthand version. L's God is
who/what perceives and does through the supreme monad.
L's God is itself therefore not a monad, it's
On 08 Dec 2012, at 14:48, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
Comp or even just Peano arithmetic suggests that the monads do not
need a god outside of themselves.
Hmm... we need to believe in some truth which might transcend us a
little bit ...
Arithmetical truth transcends *all* machines.
On 08 Dec 2012, at 16:23, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent
collisions, keep oil and water separate.
No they don't. The separation of oil and water is
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 1:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Processes still have to have overall coordination to prevent
collisions, keep oil and water separate.
No they don't. The separation of oil and water is just the macroscopic
outcome of local
On 12/8/2012 2:28 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen,
it is amazing how we formulate our (belief) systems similarly, except
for yours in a descriptive - mine in an agnostic explanation (=a joke).
Dear John,
;-) I try hard to stay in a superposed state, somewhere between
serious and 'just
On 12/8/2012 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
People change over time and the meaning of the pronoun associated with that changing
person will change over time too, and the meaning of the pronoun will change even more
suddenly if a duplicating chamber is used.
But both remember the protocol, and
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 06:34:56AM -0500, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
He's talking about psychological introspection using
everyday language and concepts. Philosophical
introspection a la Kant for example, is more formal
and precise and uses formal categories.
I don't see a
47 matches
Mail list logo
