Re: Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
On 06 Dec 2013, at 02:21, LizR wrote: On 6 December 2013 14:15, Roger Clough wrote: Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete, since it omits mind from reality. For some unaccountable reason you have left Bruno off your list. Thanks Liz :) Bruno -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
On 06 Dec 2013, at 02:15, Roger Clough wrote: Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete, since it omits mind from reality. The notion of matter does not even make sense, if we assume mechanism. It is like phlogiston or ether. It is not much incomplete than epistemologically inconsistent. Bruno Leibniz modeled reality as material bodies in the dualism of a monad, which is the corresponding mental being of matter. The matter is in spacetime, the monad is outside of spacetime. Heidegger's dasein is a combination of the german words "da", meaning "there", and "sein" meaning "being" or "mental". The "da" is in spacetime and the "sein" is outside of spacetime, so a dasein is a monad. Thus Heidegger's universe is essentially the same as Leibniz's, an infinite collection of monads or daseins. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
On 6 December 2013 14:15, Roger Clough wrote: > Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad > > Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply > physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger > shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete, > since it omits mind from reality. > For some unaccountable reason you have left Bruno off your list. -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad
Reality is not matter, it's Heidegger's dasein, which is Leibniz's monad Materialists spend much effort on trying to show that reality is simply physics. But the philosophy of Plato, Leibniz, Kant, and now Heidegger shows that materialism and analytic philosophy is incomplete, since it omits mind from reality. Leibniz modeled reality as material bodies in the dualism of a monad, which is the corresponding mental being of matter. The matter is in spacetime, the monad is outside of spacetime. Heidegger's dasein is a combination of the german words "da", meaning "there", and "sein" meaning "being" or "mental". The "da" is in spacetime and the "sein" is outside of spacetime, so a dasein is a monad. Thus Heidegger's universe is essentially the same as Leibniz's, an infinite collection of monads or daseins. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Re: Dasein
Back to the language-misunderstandings! *"There is a problem"* does it mean *NOT HERE*, but *THERE* do I see the problem, or rather (as I do guess): - *a problem exists* - ? German is not English. "*Das DASEIN*" is not the infinitive with a local monitor,:( "da sein") rather a composite *NOUN. * John M On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 6:00 PM, Roger wrote: > Hi John Mikes > > I think Heidegger simply made up a new word for his purposes, where > since da=there, > and sein = being, then dasein is in Heideggers glossary "being there. > > > Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/17/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > - Receiving the following content - > *From:* John Mikes > *Receiver:* everything-list > *Time:* 2012-08-17, 16:10:53 > *Subject:* Re: Dasein > > Bruno, > I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's > incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other > reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that > 'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so. > � > One remark - and I am not so sure about being right: "DASEIN" in my > (almost mothertongue German)爉ay not reflect the "DA" = *there* plus > "SEIN" *to be*, rather (- and again I hide behind my second 'almost' of > half century in the US:)� - - �*"THE EXISTENCE"*. > � > I feel Heidegger (whom I did not study) does not imply a spacial, or > locational momentum by using 'Dasein' for a simple 'Sein'. He might have in > mind the difference between the 爀xisting爒s. the not existing. It also has a > rythmical ease vs. a short 'sein' what the English put by the 'to' and the > French in a longer 1.5-syllable(?) tre. > � > JohnM > > > � > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote: >> >> >> Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below >> by using the word "dasein".� "Being there ". >> Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the >> world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. >> >> >> >> I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you >> read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion.� >> Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a >> machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of >> machine, or in any third person objective term. >> >> >> >> � >> � >> >> >> � >> � >> Hi Bruno Marchal >> � >> This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you >> seem to speak of the world and mind >> as objects.� But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world >> and mind as we live them, >> not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. >> >> >> The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with >> objective and subjective property.� >> >> >> >> � >> It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving >> in.� >> � >> Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but爊ot actually eating >> it. >> >> >> But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to >> their appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more >> importantly to what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please >> read the papers as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more >> than 1500 years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality >> is a non computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can >> test. So my main point is that comp is a testable theory. >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> >> � >> � >> Roger , rclo...@verizon.net >> 8/15/2012 >> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so >> everything could function." >> >> >> � >> >> 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
Re: Re: Dasein
Hi John Mikes I think Heidegger simply made up a new word for his purposes, where since da=there, and sein = being, then dasein is in Heideggers glossary "being there. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Mikes Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-17, 16:10:53 Subject: Re: Dasein Bruno, I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that 'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so. ? One remark - and I am not so sure about being right: "DASEIN" in my (almost mothertongue German)?ay not reflect the "DA" = there plus "SEIN" to be, rather (- and again I hide behind my second 'almost' of half century in the US:)? - - ?"THE EXISTENCE". ? I feel Heidegger (whom I did not study) does not imply a spacial, or locational momentum by using 'Dasein' for a simple 'Sein'. He might have in mind the difference between the ?xisting?s. the not existing. It also has a rythmical ease vs. a short 'sein' what the English put by the 'to' and the French in a longer 1.5-syllable(?) tre. ? JohnM ? On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote: Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below by using the word "dasein".? "Being there ". Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion.? Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of machine, or in any third person objective term. ? ? ? ? Hi Bruno Marchal ? This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you seem to speak of the world and mind as objects.? But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world and mind as we live them, not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with objective and subjective property.? ? It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving in.? ? Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but?ot actually eating it. But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to their appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more importantly to what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please read the papers as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more than 1500 years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality is a non computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can test. So my main point is that comp is a testable theory. Bruno ? ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." ? 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. -- 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. -- 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: Dasein
Bruno, I admire your perseverence and also of others keeping pace of Roger's incredible flood of posts. I confess to have fallen out if not by other reasons: lack of time to read (not to mention: comprehend) all that 'wisdom' he includes into this list over the past week or so. One remark - and I am not so sure about being right: "DASEIN" in my (almost mothertongue German) may not reflect the "DA" = *there* plus "SEIN" *to be*, rather (- and again I hide behind my second 'almost' of half century in the US:) - - *"THE EXISTENCE"*. I feel Heidegger (whom I did not study) does not imply a spacial, or locational momentum by using 'Dasein' for a simple 'Sein'. He might have in mind the difference between the existing vs. the not existing. It also has a rythmical ease vs. a short 'sein' what the English put by the 'to' and the French in a longer 1.5-syllable(?) tre. JohnM On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote: > > > Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below > by using the word "dasein". "Being there ". > Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the > world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. > > > > I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you > read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion. > Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a > machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of > machine, or in any third person objective term. > > > > > > > > > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you > seem to speak of the world and mind > as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world > and mind as we live them, > not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. > > > The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with > objective and subjective property. > > > > > It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving > in. > > Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating > it. > > > But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to their > appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more importantly to > what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please read the papers > as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more than 1500 > years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality is a non > computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can test. So my > main point is that comp is a testable theory. > > Bruno > > > > > > > Roger , rclo...@verizon.net > 8/15/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could function." > > > > > 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. > -- 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: Dasein
Hi Bruno Marchal This also needs looking into by mne. Thanks. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-16, 05:19:45 Subject: Re: Dasein On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote: Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below by using the word "dasein". "Being there ". Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion. Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of machine, or in any third person objective term. Hi Bruno Marchal This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you seem to speak of the world and mind as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world and mind as we live them, not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with objective and subjective property. It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving in. Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating it. But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to their appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more importantly to what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please read the papers as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more than 1500 years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality is a non computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can test. So my main point is that comp is a testable theory. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - 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. 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.
Re: Dasein
On 15 Aug 2012, at 15:13, Roger wrote: Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below by using the word "dasein". "Being there ". Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. I agree. This is what I call the first person point of view, and if you read the UDA proof, you will see that it is a key notion. Then in the technical part I explain that the first person view of a machine, is NOT a machine, and cannot even been describe in term of machine, or in any third person objective term. Hi Bruno Marchal This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you seem to speak of the world and mind as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world and mind as we live them, not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. The person are subject. OK. The mind or spirit are too general term, with objective and subjective property. It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving in. Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating it. But you are doing that very mistake with machine. You reduce them to their appearance instead of listening to what they say, and more importantly to what they stay mute about. More on this later, but please read the papers as it shows that we are deadly wrong in theology since more than 1500 years, with or without comp. And with comp, the physical reality is a non computational appearance obeying very precise law that we can test. So my main point is that comp is a testable theory. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - 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 . 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.
Dasein
Bruno, Heidegger tried to express the point I tried to make below by using the word "dasein". "Being there ". Not merely describing a topic or item, but seeing the world from its point of view. Being inside it. Being there. Hi Bruno Marchal This is hard to put into words. No offense, and I may be wrong, but you seem to speak of the world and mind as objects. But like a coin, I believe they have a flip side, the world and mind as we live them, not as objects but as subjects. Entirely different worlds. It is as if you talk about swimming in the water without actually diving in. Or treating a meal as that which is on the menu, but not actually eating it. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/15/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - 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.
