On 1/5/2013 7:46 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
<SNIP>
ROGER: He had done away with two-substance
cartesian dualism by considering both mind and body from a mental
or logical aspect.
STEVE: Yes, but at a price. I am, you could say, trying to make the
price "reasonable". His PEH is, IMHO, too costly ontologically
speaking. I am seeking to replace it with a "ongoing computation" idea.
ROGER: Good idea. I had replaced it with thermodynamics, but that only
works in the large.
Right now I am exploring Sheldrake's concept of morphic resonances.
Hi Roger,
Cool. Thermodynamics should always drop out. I found that Penrose's
new conformal cyclic cosmology idea adds even more.
>rse the phenomenal world still existed, so he still needed some
appropriate
>way of mentally designating material objects.
STEVE: Sure, and we can capture the "materialness" of physical
reality with appropriate concepts while not having to conjure utopian
fantasies of perfection. The way that computers can simulate
each other perfectly captures the interaction model what L
proposed for interaction between monads, but to use it we need a
different way of thinking. IMHO,
the pseudo-telepathy of quantum games theory is perfect but still
too theoretical as it exists today. [Also,] QM allows for this kind
of telepathy!
ROGER: Sounds like you have some great ideas.
I have been studying this stuff for a long time...
(ROGER continuing to expound L's concept of substance) These were
all substances, but
L only considered as real or permanent only indivisible substances
(substances of only
one part-- without internal boundaries.) These indivisible real
objects he called monads.
STEVE: My claim is that we can dispense completely with substances
and use relative invariances instead.
ROGER: Cool. These (monads) have the same or at least very similar
characteristics as morphic fields....
STEVE: I agree.
ROGER: ....which I am continuing to explore, partly because they are
supported by some empirical data.
....... I had previously said that time is not a feature in
monadic space, which had essentially ruled out experiences
except as snapshots. That seems now to be too extreme.
STEVE: I agree [presumably with my previous ruling out of
experiences] this is a feature of the PEH idea, which I am trying to
show to be flawed.
<SNIP>
yes, but as if for each and every monad thus setting up a
'multisolipsistic' regime as Andrew Soltau discusses in his work.
ROGER: Personally I believe that the denial of windows is deliberately
to disempower the monads so that only the omniscient supreme
monad is aware, as we ordinarily think of the term. In essence
the physical universe is simply the body of one great soul or person.
The closure of monads follows from the closure of perception.
STEVE: Yes, but to do so makes the role of free will degenerate. This
is too high a price, IMHO. It is like the hyper-Calvinist doctrine.
ROGER: God gave man free will to do good or evil, so determinism can't
be a Christian doctrine.
It would have been possible to know in advance what man would do
(the PEH) , but knowing and causing
are two different things. At the same time, they are difficult to
understand, and easily confused,
and moreover if you toss in the doctrine that man can do nothing
good without God's help,
and allow with the book of Job that God could allow evil to be
done to man,
the issue gets very very murky.
But I have no problem with the PEH, which God could do if He
simply wanted to, a priori.
Along with, and seemingly a necessity to, his creation of the
world. So again I am sticking
with Leibniz.
(ROGER previously) > The supreme monad however can see everything
with perfect undistorted clarity from ts domain and
instantly updates the "perceptions" of each monad.
I use the "" since the actual perceptions are indirect
as described above. A single monad reflects all of the other
monads, but only from his perspective. Only the
Supreme Monad sees things as they really are (from all
perspectives at once (incomprehensible to us)
instead of the single perspective we call the phenomenol world).
STEPHEN: Why is this necessary? Why not have any one monad reflect in its
process all other monads? Every monad is in a sense 'the supreme
monad'
in this way. No need for a hierarchical structure...
My vision of L's idea was that all monads reflected all others.
The relation between them is that of a network, not a hierarchical tree.
It is interesting to note that if the network is large enough,
there will almost always be tree graphs definable in it as subsets.
This leads to a predominance of the appearance of a hierarchy for
individual monads within the network.
ROGER: I think that the reaon is that since thoughts cannot act on
another,
neither can monads. Hence Leibniz's very complicated explanation
of what happens
when one ball strikes another. He has though these isssues out to
some depth.
We can show, if we use the computation paradigm that Bruno is
exploring, that we do not need a separate external world; we get it
automatically by considering the synchronization of internal percepts of
many monads.
--
Onward!
Stephen
--
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.
