Hi Alan Rayner \(BU\) Then you take the intelligent (independent) observer for granted, which is good and doesn't get you into trouble. But it doesn't solve the complete problem of inclusionality.
I think you can say more. I don't think we can say in detail what the independent observer is, but it has to be independent and to have intelligence, if for nothing else than to "make sense" of what it observes all on its own (if for nothing else, then for survival fitness), and to think, especially to create something entirely new. Materialism does include an observer, but as with you, it is simply presumed, never if ever discussed. Michael Dennett has, greatly to his credit, recognized the problem of an infinite regress of observers in the brain but so far has not recognized the complete independence of such a mind from matter (flesh). Complete independence is necessary if we are to perform intentional acts (those initiated by the mind). Self-observation will show you that intentional acts are more than mere instinct or natural reaction. Or to say it another way, intention and creativity have considerable survival value. My campaign has been to say more about the observer than that. At least to call it wqhat it is, cosmic mind, God or Plato's One. It isn't flesh or at least is something more than flesh. Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 5/1/2013 http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Alan Rayner \(BU\) Receiver: Roger Clough,inclusionality Time: 2013-05-01, 06:58:27 Subject: Re: Re: Re: [inclusionality] How can matter (the universe) be athought inthemind of a cosmic intelligence ? >Dear Roger, > >I recognise and indeed had already thought of that, so actually I didn't >omit that consideration! Rather, I asked myself what needs to be present for >there to be a distinguishing presence? It came down to the same foundational >need to recognise the vitality of distinct but mutually inclusive intangible >and tangible presences. > >I know that you are seeking to understand consciousness. My intention in >describing 'natural inclusionality' was not quite that ambitious, but rather >to lay a sound foundation from which such understanding could be gained. In >other words, I was and am seeking to learn to walk before trying to run, or, >to put it another way, exploring the ground floor ('ground zero'!)before >venturing 'upstairs'. I see many people trying to run before they can walk, >or beginning their enquiry on 'level 1', and so stumbling over the false >dichotomy between 'mind' and 'matter', when each is necessarily a dynamic >inclusion of form in space and space in form. > >Warmest > >Alan > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Roger Clough" >To: "Alan Rayner (BU)" ; > >Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 11:15 AM >Subject: Re: Re: Re: [inclusionality] How can matter (the universe) be a >thought inthemind of a cosmic intelligence ? > > >> Hi Alan Rayner \(BU\) >> >> What you say is completely true except for one missing element. >> What does the distinguishing ? >> >> >> Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 5/1/2013 >> http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough >> >> >> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >> From: Alan Rayner \(BU\) >> Receiver: Roger Clough,inclusionality >> Time: 2013-04-30, 11:47:38 >> Subject: Re: Re: [inclusionality] How can matter (the universe) be a >> thought inthemind of a cosmic intelligence ? >> >> >> >> The attachments of the original message is as following: >> Vitality of Each In the Otherness.doc >> >>>Dear Roger, >>> >>>Thank you. >>> >>>Well, I am not a materialistic atheist who ignores the vitality of >>>intangible presence! >>> >>>But neither is my understanding of what I call and what I have pioneered >>>as >>>'natural inclusionality' grounded in Liebniz's monads. >>> >>>My understanding arises from a simple enquiry from first principles into >>>the >>>question, 'what needs to be present for natural form to be >>>distinguishable?'. As discussed in the attached essay, published at >>>www.bestthinking.com: >>>It becomes apparent that the only way of answering this question is to >>>acknowledge the occurrence of at least two kinds of natural presence: a >>>receptive context or medium which provides freedom for local movement >>>and/or >>>expression, AND local formative content, which informs or configures that >>>context. The former is necessarily spacious, the latter necessarily >>>cohesive. Moreover, for form to be and become distinguishable, each of >>>these >>>presences must naturally include the other. Spacious presence alone would >>>be >>>formless void, and formative presence alone would have no shape or size. >>>They are necessarily distinct, but mutually inclusive presences. They can >>>neither be abstracted from one another as independent entities, nor be >>>homogenised into ?neness? The only way in which this necessity can be >>>fulfilled is for one of these presences, natural space, ultimately to be >>>everywhere, continuous, intangible (i.e. frictionless) and immobile, and >>>for >>>the other ultimately to be somewhere, distinctive, tangible and >>>continually >>>in motion. Natural space and figural boundaries are hence, respectively, >>>continuous and dynamically distinct (i.e. dynamically continuous) >>>energetic >>>interfacings between the insides and outsides of all natural forms as >>>flow-forms. >>> >>> >>> >>>All I wanted to do was make clear for you and anyone else on this list (to >>>which I rarely contribute anything) where I am coming from and why. No >>>censorship is intended. My only concern is with what is naturally true. I >>>would not choose your language to describe the mutually inclusive >>>relationship between what I refer to verbally as energy and space, but I >>>would not preclude it either. The words in themselves are only significant >>>in terms of the meanings they communicate. >>> >>> >>> >>>Warmest >>> >>> >>> >>>Alan >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Roger Clough" >>>To: "Alan Rayner (BU)" ; >>> >>>Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 3:48 PM >>>Subject: Re: Re: [inclusionality] How can matter (the universe) be a >>>thought >>>in themind of a cosmic intelligence ? >>> >>> >>>> Hi Alan Rayner \(BU\) >>>> >>>> >>>> Sorry for my grumpy response, the spring pollen >>>> does that to me. And I have a sore spot with materialistic >>>> atheists. >>>> >>>> Very nice poem. >>>> >>>> Leibniz's metaphysics has an ontology where >>>> one monad can contain a colony of other monads within it. >>>> And the universe is made up entirely with monads. >>>> They are all alive. There's no space in between. >>>> >>>> >>>> Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/30/2013 >>>> http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough >>>> >>>> >>>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- >>>> From: Alan Rayner \(BU\) >>>> Receiver: inclusionality,- Roger Clough >>>> Time: 2013-04-29, 12:21:09 >>>> Subject: Re: [inclusionality] How can matter (the universe) be a thought >>>> in themind of a cosmic intelligence ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The attachments of the original message is as following: >>>> Rayner A (2011) printedSPACE CANNOT BE CUT.pdf >>>> >>>>>Dear Roger, >>>>> >>>>>I see you continuing to circulate these thoughts and references. But, >>>>>for >>>>>the sake of clarification, I will just say that to my mind, they are >>>>>distractions from 'inclusionality', or, as I refer to my understanding, >>>>>'natural inclusionality', unless, by 'mind of God', you are alluding to >>>>>what I would call 'receptive space' and by 'thought' you are alluding to >>>>>what I would call 'energy'. And, then again, quantum physics doesn't, to >>>>>my mind, have 'the answer'. The following poem by David Whyte comes >>>>>closer: >>>>> >>>>>What To Remember When Waking >>>>>by David Whyte >>>>>In that first hardly noticed moment in which you wake, >>>>>coming back to this life from the other >>>>>more secret, moveable and frighteningly honest world >>>>>where everything began, >>>>>there is a small opening into the new day >>>>>which closes the moment you begin your plans. >>>>> >>>>>What you can plan is too small for you to live. >>>>>What you can live wholeheartedly will make plans enough >>>>>for the vitality hidden in your sleep. >>>>> >>>>>To be human is to become visible >>>>>while carrying what is hidden as a gift to others. >>>>>To remember the other world in this world >>>>>is to live in your true inheritance. >>>>> >>>>>You are not a troubled guest on this earth, >>>>>you are not an accident amidst other accidents >>>>>you were invited from another and greater night >>>>>than the one from which you have just emerged. >>>>> >>>>>Now, looking through the slanting light of the morning window >>>>>toward the mountain presence of everything that can be >>>>>what urgency calls you to your one love? >>>>>What shape waits in the seed of you >>>>>to grow and spread its branches >>>>>against a future sky? >>>>> >>>>>Is it waiting in the fertile sea? >>>>>In the trees beyond the house? >>>>>In the life you can imagine for yourself? >>>>>In the open and lovely white page on the writing desk? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>cf attached paper, and www.inclusionality.org. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Warmest >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Alan >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>>> From: Roger Clough >>>>> To: - Roger Clough >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 4:38 PM >>>>> Subject: [inclusionality] How can matter (the universe) be a thought >>>>> in >>>>> the mind of a cosmic intelligence ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How can matter (the universe) be a thought in the mind of a cosmic >>>>> intelligence ? >>>>> >>>>> How can matter be a thought ? That is because matter is at the base >>>>> entirely mathematical, as quantum physics suggests. >>>>> >>>>> References: >>>>> >>>>> Idealism in science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism >>>>> >>>>> The metaphysics of Leibniz. (http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough) >>>>> >>>>> Paul Davies in "the Mind of God" puts these scientists' discoveries >>>>> into >>>>> context with the writings of philosophers such as Plato. Descartes, >>>>> Hume, >>>>> and Kant. >>>>> His startling conclusion is that the universe is "no minor byproduct >>>>> of >>>>> mindless, purposeless forces. We are truly meant to be here." By the >>>>> means of >>>>> science, we can truly see into the mind of God. >>>>> Sir James Jeans wrote; "The stream of knowledge is heading towards a >>>>> non-mechanical reality; the Universe begins to look more like a great >>>>> thought >>>>> than like a great machine. Mind no longer appears to be an accidental >>>>> intruder into the realm of matter... we ought rather hail it as the >>>>> creator and governor of the realm of matter."[59] >>>>> >>>>> Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 4/29/2013 >>>>> >>>>> http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> __________________________________________________________ >> DreamMail - Enjoy good email software www.dreammail.org >> > > -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
