Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind

2012-08-31 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 8/31/2012 9:05 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
There no doubt are similarities, but IMHO dual-aspect is
conceptually headless.  Guillotined. Unable to explain Cs and mind.
Or if I may, God, for that matter. Hence materialists are
mostlhy atheists.
The absolutely critical thing missing from dual-aspect
monism is government: A president, congress, supreme
court, all of that good stuff.
And a constitution.


Hi Roger,

Umm, I was considering the definitions of philosophical ontologies, 
nothing else...


--
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 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.

Re: Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough 
Hi Stephen P. King 

There no doubt are similarities, but IMHO dual-aspect is
conceptually headless.  Guillotined. Unable to explain Cs and mind.
Or if I may, God, for that matter. Hence materialists are
mostlhy atheists. 

The absolutely critical thing missing from dual-aspect 
monism is government: A president, congress, supreme 
court, all of that good stuff.

And a constitution.

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: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 08:34:20
Subject: Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind


On 8/31/2012 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
 
Leibniz's Idealism (LI)  differs from dual-aspect monism (DAM)
in that while both have corresponding domains of brain and mind, 
as I understand it, DAM is an overlay of brain and mind.

Hi Roger,

LI is commesurate with DAM, IMHO. The distinction tht I draw is that the 
DAM that I am considering does not hide the details of interaction between 
monads. LI puts all of the explanation into a God given Pre-Established 
Harmony", what I am considering does not as it seeks to explicitly show an 
explanation of the interactions between minds (as bisimulations). The PEH of LI 
and Pratt's DAM's residuation via bisimulation become identical in the ultimate 
limit.


 
But  LI feautures mind in Ideal space in the form of monads, each of which is
like a homunculus, so that the Leibniz mind functionally includes the whole
human-- heart, mind, soul, and body- as a whole.  Thus intellect
and feeling and body are not separated by barriers, but can
act wholistically.  The textbook example is that in LI mind
can (although indirectly) influence body and body similarly the mind, 
with no logical problems such as arose from Descartes' dualism
of mind and body. Dual aspect monism, as did descartes,  simply ignores the
subvstance dualism of mind and body as irrelevant to the
progress of neuroscience.

DAM defines "substance" as a set of "almost exact"endomorphisms between 
monads, nothing more.


 
This issue of cartesiabn dualism is what caused L to formulate
his monadic metaphysics. The monadic structure and the homunculus
substructure create an entirely different picture of how mind operates
and what it can do (nonlocality, clairvoyance, partial and individual 
clarity of communion with other minds and God, how intellect
can cause  dominion of one monad over another, the
governmebnt of the universe and mind by God, etc. for example)

Sure! We see evidence of how this might be explained in quantum 
pseudo-telepathy.


 
And what self is, and how it participates in perception and action.
 
Pratt and the other theorists afre completely unawafre of this
fact that the universe is subjective.

You might wish to not be so sure, but that is your choice to make. :-) 


 
 
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: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 18:12:16
Subject: Re: CTMU


On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> I? reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher 
> Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a 
> theory of everything which includes the mind:
>
> http://www.ctmu.net/
>
> Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at 
> least it is interesting.
Hi Alberto,

 Oh my!

"...SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism..."

 Sound familiar? Nice to see that many others are independently 
discovering the same idea.

-- 
Onward!

Stephen





-- 
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 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.

Re: Living in a subjective universe vs having a dual aspect mind

2012-08-31 Thread Stephen P. King 

On 8/31/2012 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King
Leibniz's Idealism (LI)  differs from dual-aspect monism (DAM)
in that while both have corresponding domains of brain and mind,
as I understand it, DAM is an overlay of brain and mind.


Hi Roger,

LI is commesurate with DAM, IMHO. The distinction tht I draw is 
that the DAM that I am considering does not hide the details of 
interaction between monads. LI puts all of the explanation into a God 
given Pre-Established Harmony", what I am considering does not as it 
seeks to explicitly show an explanation of the interactions between 
minds (as bisimulations). The PEH of LI and Pratt's DAM's residuation 
via bisimulation become identical in the ultimate limit.


But  LI feautures mind in Ideal space in the form of monads, each of 
which is
like a homunculus, so that the Leibniz mind functionally includes the 
whole

human-- heart, mind, soul, and body- as a whole.  Thus intellect
and feeling and body are not separated by barriers, but can
act wholistically.  The textbook example is that in LI mind
can (although indirectly) influence body and body similarly the mind,
with no logical problems such as arose from Descartes' dualism
of mind and body. Dual aspect monism, as did descartes,  simply 
ignores the

subvstance dualism of mind and body as irrelevant to the
progress of neuroscience.


DAM defines "substance" as a set of "almost exact"endomorphisms 
between monads, nothing more.



This issue of cartesiabn dualism is what caused L to formulate
his monadic metaphysics. The monadic structure and the homunculus
substructure create an entirely different picture of how mind operates
and what it can do (nonlocality, clairvoyance, partial and individual
clarity of communion with other minds and God, how intellect
can cause  dominion of one monad over another, the
governmebnt of the universe and mind by God, etc. for example)


Sure! We see evidence of how this might be explained in quantum 
pseudo-telepathy.



And what self is, and how it participates in perception and action.
Pratt and the other theorists afre completely unawafre of this
fact that the universe is subjective.


You might wish to not be so sure, but that is your choice to make. :-)


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:* Stephen P. King 
*Receiver:* everything-list 
*Time:* 2012-08-30, 18:12:16
*Subject:* Re: CTMU

On 8/30/2012 2:24 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
> I磎 reading pratt theory and I remembered the CTMU, from Cristopher
> Langan , the mand with higuest CI measured so far, which present a
> theory of everything which includes the mind:
>
> http://www.ctmu.net/
>
> Anyone had notice previously about it?. I read it time ago and at
> least it is interesting.
Hi Alberto,

 Oh my!

"...SCSPL reality embodies a dual-aspect monism..."

 Sound familiar? Nice to see that many others are independently
discovering the same idea.

-- 
Onward!


Stephen




--
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 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.