How can there be a subjective universe ? This question can be answered by the use of Leibniz's Monadology:
See http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/leibniz.htm for that. I have no idea why it is on a Marxist website, for it aims to do away with materialism. Monads seem to provide the only way to understand how there could be a subjective universe, for the entire universe is composed of monads (substances) and so material bodies each have a monad attached to them to guide them indirectly acccording to pre-established harmony. Indirectly, because all monads are blind and passive except for the dominant monad of the universe, which you might call Cosmic Mind (but i would call God). And only monads of the highest order have intelligence, while physical bodies just have instructions misleadingly called "perceptions" , as to where to go. Such Perceptions (which are indirect, since a monad does not have windows), for physical bodies are just guidance instructions, and appetitions, which are its desires (for life, to follow Goal-based causation, and for dead matter to follow the usual laws of physics (called efficient causation). Dead bodies do not have intelligence, which is necessary foir consciousness, so without consciousness, the subjectivity of a stone for example, would be analogous to that of a blind deaf man (guided by an angel). Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-14, 05:38:31 Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible Hi William, On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote: Bruno: >From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe seems rather obvious. I don't think anything is obvious here. What do you mean by a subjective universe? Do you mean that we are dreaming? What is your theory of dream? What is your theory of mind? Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient I guess you mean universal. But universality is incompatible with omniscience, even restricted to number relations. Computational universality entails the impossibility of omniscience. solely as a consequence of its construction, and yet, it can hardly be said that the engineer who designed the Turing machine (why, Turing, himself!) intentioned to put into that machine as computable computations. ? Somehow, where information is concerned, context is king. I agree with this. I would say that information is really context selection. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
