### Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitive science

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

### Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: Whoopie ! The natural numbers are indeed monads

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

### Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads

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:

### Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can be monads. Cool.

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

### Re: Against Mechanism

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

### Re: a paper on Leibnizian mathematical ideas

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

### Re: Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitive science

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

### Why a supreme monad is necessary

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

### Humeian and Leibnizian causation

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

### Re: Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

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

### Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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.

### Re: Re: WHOOPS! The Supreme Monad (God) is necessary after all..

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

### Synchronizing the subprograms

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

### Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

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

### Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

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

### Re: Synchronizing the subprograms

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. -

### Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.

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

### Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.

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

### Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can bemonads. Cool.

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],

### Re: Re: Synchronizing the subprograms

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

### Re: Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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:

### Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

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

### Re: Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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.

### Re: Re: Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

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,

### Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: Why a supreme monad is necessary

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

### Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

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'. :-)

### Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: WHOOPS! The Supreme Monad (God) is necessary after all..

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

### Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.

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

### Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

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

### Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

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

### Re: WHOOPS! The Supreme Monad (God) is necessary after all..

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

### Re: Whoopie ! The natural INTEGERS are indeed monads

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

### Re: One cannot have 1p if there is no observer.

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

### Re: An additional observation-- But only the prime numbers can bemonads. Cool.

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

### Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

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

### Re: Avoiding the use of the word God

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.

### Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: The two wrong paths of modern cognitive science

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

### Re: A truce: if atheism/materialism is an as if universe

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

### Re: Against Mechanism

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

### Re: Re: Introspection (internal 1p) has been dropped by cognitive science

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