Re: Re: Misusing Descartes' model

[Roger]

Hi Bruno Marchal 

Thanks for the information. 


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/16/2012 
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: 2012-08-15, 04:31:23
Subject: Re: Misusing Descartes' model




On 14 Aug 2012, at 19:14, Roger wrote:


Hi Jason Resch 

You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two completely 
different substances--
mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to understand.
And it was also easy to follow Newton, because bodies acted "as if" they 
transferred energy or momentum.

In Descartes' model, God was external to the mind/body issue, being essentially 
left out.


Not in the meditation. God is needed, actually the goodness of God is needed to 
avoid the dream argument consequence. When you feel something real, it is real, 
because God will not lie to you, basically. I don't follow Descartes, on this, 
but his text "In search of the truth" makes me think that Descartes was himself 
not quite glad with this.






So using the Descartes model, God (or some Cosmic Mind), who actually did these 
adjustments, 
could be left out of the universe. And mind was then treated as material.

At the time of Descartes and Leibniz, there was a fork in the
road, and science took the more convenient path of Newton and Descartes 
(materialism),
which works quite well if you gloss over the unsolved mind/body problem ---
until you look for a self or a God or a Cosmic Mind. Not there, as in Dennet's 
materialism.

No wonder scientists are mostly atheists, since God doesn't fit into their 
model 
of the universe. While in Leibniz, God is necessary. for the universe


In my opinion, Descartes too, but was perhaps willingly unclear to avoid 
problems with the authorities.


Bruno










Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 14:53:26
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony


As I understand it, the?eibniz's?ational for advocating the pre-established 
harmony idea was Newton's discovery of conservation of momentum. ?escartes knew 
that energy was conserved, but not momentum. ?his would have permitted a 
non-physical mind to alter the trajectories of particles in the mind so long as 
the speed of the particles remained unchanged. ?ewton's revelation however was 
that in order for the motion of one particle to be changed, another physical 
particle must have an equal and opposite change in momentum. ?his does not 
permit a non physical force to change the motion of particles, and hence 
Leibniz concluded that the mental world does not affect the physical word, or 
vice versa. ?ather, they were made to agree beforehand (you might think of it 
as a bunch of souls watching a pre-recorded movie of the physical world, but 
this pre-recorded movie also agrees with the intentions of the souls watching 
it). 


In Monadology, published in 1714, Leibniz wrote ?escartes recognized that souls 
cannot impart any force to bodies, because there is always the same quantity of 
force in matter. Nevertheless he was of opinion that the soul could change the 
direction of bodies. But that is because in his time it was not known that 
there is a law of nature which affirms also the conservation of the same total 
direction in matter. Had Descartes noticed this he would have come upon my 
system of pre-established harmony. 
Jason


On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Roger  wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as 
composer/conductor.
This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.
I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's?elief that God,
whoc is good, constructed the?est possible world where
as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed. Hence
Voltaire's ?oolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how 
could the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
part of the most perfect world ?
Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.
* As a related and possibly explanatory?oint, L's universe
completely is nonlocal. 
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 01:56:41
Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ?


Hi Roger,

? I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about 
Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony?


On 8/10/2

Re: Misusing Descartes' model

[Stephen P. King]

On 8/15/2012 4:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 14 Aug 2012, at 19:14, Roger wrote:


Hi Jason Resch
You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two 
completely different substances--

mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to understand.
And it was also easy to follow Newton, because bodies acted "as if" 
they transferred energy or momentum.
In Descartes' model, God was external to the mind/body issue, being 
essentially left out.


Not in the meditation. God is needed, actually the goodness of God is 
needed to avoid the dream argument consequence. When you feel 
something real, it is real, because God will not lie to you, 
basically. I don't follow Descartes, on this, but his text "In search 
of the truth" makes me think that Descartes was himself not quite glad 
with this.




Dear Bruno and Roger,

We can avoid the intentionally not a liar question by noticing that 
a physical world requires incontrovertibly (no contradictions) so that 
there could be persistent objects. My conjecture is that this obtain 
automatically if all interactions require a "floor" or level where all 
statements that might be communicated are representable by a Boolean 
algebra. I suspect that the "substitution level" of COMP is a version of 
this idea.





So using the Descartes model, God (or some Cosmic Mind), who actually 
did these adjustments,

could be left out of the universe. And mind was then treated as material.
At the time of Descartes and Leibniz, there was a fork in the
road, and science took the more convenient path of Newton and 
Descartes (materialism),
which works quite well if you gloss over the unsolved mind/body 
problem ---
until you look for a self or a God or a Cosmic Mind. Not there, as in 
Dennet's materialism.
No wonder scientists are mostly atheists, since God doesn't fit into 
their model

of the universe. While in Leibniz, God is necessary. for the universe


In my opinion, Descartes too, but was perhaps willingly unclear to 
avoid problems with the authorities.


Many writers in that epoch had to moderate their words, especially 
given the example that was made of Giordano Bruno 
.



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
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: Misusing Descartes' model

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Aug 2012, at 19:14, Roger wrote:


Hi Jason Resch

You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two  
completely different substances--
mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to  
understand.
And it was also easy to follow Newton, because bodies acted "as if"  
they transferred energy or momentum.


In Descartes' model, God was external to the mind/body issue, being  
essentially left out.


Not in the meditation. God is needed, actually the goodness of God is  
needed to avoid the dream argument consequence. When you feel  
something real, it is real, because God will not lie to you,  
basically. I don't follow Descartes, on this, but his text "In search  
of the truth" makes me think that Descartes was himself not quite glad  
with this.




So using the Descartes model, God (or some Cosmic Mind), who  
actually did these adjustments,
could be left out of the universe. And mind was then treated as  
material.


At the time of Descartes and Leibniz, there was a fork in the
road, and science took the more convenient path of Newton and  
Descartes (materialism),
which works quite well if you gloss over the unsolved mind/body  
problem ---
until you look for a self or a God or a Cosmic Mind. Not there, as  
in Dennet's materialism.


No wonder scientists are mostly atheists, since God doesn't fit into  
their model

of the universe. While in Leibniz, God is necessary. for the universe


In my opinion, Descartes too, but was perhaps willingly unclear to  
avoid problems with the authorities.


Bruno







Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Jason Resch
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 14:53:26
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony

As I understand it, the燣eibniz's爎ational for advocating the pre- 
established harmony idea was Newton's discovery of conservation of  
momentum. 燚escartes knew that energy was conserved, but not  
momentum. 燭his would have permitted a non-physical mind to alter  
the trajectories of particles in the mind so long as the speed of  
the particles remained unchanged. 燦ewton's revelation however was  
that in order for the motion of one particle to be changed, another  
physical particle must have an equal and opposite change in  
momentum. 燭his does not permit a non physical force to change the  
motion of particles, and hence Leibniz concluded that the mental  
world does not affect the physical word, or vice versa. 燫ather,  
they were made   to agree beforehand (you might think of it as a  
bunch of souls watching a pre-recorded movie of the physical world,  
but this pre-recorded movie also agrees with the intentions of the  
souls watching it).


In Monadology, published in 1714, Leibniz wrote 揇escartes  
recognized that souls cannot impart any force to bodies, because  
there is always the same quantity of force in matter. Nevertheless  
he was of opinion that the soul could change the direction of  
bodies. But that is because in his time it was not known that there  
is a law of nature which affirms also the conservation of the same  
total direction in matter. Had Descartes noticed this he would have  
come upon my system of pre-established harmony.�

Jason

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Roger  wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
�
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as
composer/conductor.
�
This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.
�
I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's燽elief that God,
whoc is good, constructed the燽est possible world where
as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed.� Hence
Voltaire's 爁oolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how
could� the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
part of the most perfect world ?
�
Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.
�
* As a related and possibly explanatory爌oint, L's universe
completely is nonlocal.
�
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stephen P. King
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-11, 01:56:41
Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware  
of stuff ?


Hi Roger,

牋� I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some  
remarks about Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony?



On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote:

Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say
contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your
monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling
agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and
neurophilosophy.



--
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."
~ Francis Bacon

--
You received this message because yo

Misusing Descartes' model

[Roger]

Hi Jason Resch 

You got it right. Descartes never troubled to explain how two completely 
different substances--
mind and body-- could interact. And Leibniz was too hard to understand.
And it was also easy to follow Newton, because bodies acted "as if" they 
transferred energy or momentum.

In Descartes' model, God was external to the mind/body issue, being essentially 
left out.
So using the Descartes model, God (or some Cosmic Mind), who actually did these 
adjustments, 
could be left out of the universe. And mind was then treated as material.

At the time of Descartes and Leibniz, there was a fork in the
road, and science took the more convenient path of Newton and Descartes 
(materialism),
which works quite well if you gloss over the unsolved mind/body problem ---
until you look for a self or a God or a Cosmic Mind. Not there, as in Dennet's 
materialism.

No wonder scientists are mostly atheists, since God doesn't fit into their 
model 
of the universe. While in Leibniz, God is necessary. for the universe


Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/14/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Jason Resch 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 14:53:26
Subject: Re: pre-established harmony


As I understand it, the?eibniz's?ational for advocating the pre-established 
harmony idea was Newton's discovery of conservation of momentum. ?escartes knew 
that energy was conserved, but not momentum. ?his would have permitted a 
non-physical mind to alter the trajectories of particles in the mind so long as 
the speed of the particles remained unchanged. ?ewton's revelation however was 
that in order for the motion of one particle to be changed, another physical 
particle must have an equal and opposite change in momentum. ?his does not 
permit a non physical force to change the motion of particles, and hence 
Leibniz concluded that the mental world does not affect the physical word, or 
vice versa. ?ather, they were made to agree beforehand (you might think of it 
as a bunch of souls watching a pre-recorded movie of the physical world, but 
this pre-recorded movie also agrees with the intentions of the souls watching 
it).


In Monadology, published in 1714, Leibniz wrote ?escartes recognized that souls 
cannot impart any force to bodies, because there is always the same quantity of 
force in matter. Nevertheless he was of opinion that the soul could change the 
direction of bodies. But that is because in his time it was not known that 
there is a law of nature which affirms also the conservation of the same total 
direction in matter. Had Descartes noticed this he would have come upon my 
system of pre-established harmony.?
Jason


On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Roger  wrote:

Hi Stephen P. King 
?
As I understand it, Leibniz's pre-established harmony is analogous to
a musical score with God, or at least some super-intelligence, as 
composer/conductor.
?
This prevents all physical particles from colliding, instead they
all move harmoniously together*. The score was composed before the
Big Bang-- my own explanation is like Mozart God or that intelligence
could hear the whole (symphony) beforehand in his head.
?
I suppose that this accords with Leibniz's?elief that God,
whoc is good, constructed the?est possible world where
as a miniomum, that least physics is obeyed.? Hence
Voltaire's ?oolish criticism of Leibniz in Candide that how 
could? the volcanic or earthquake disaster in Lisbon be
part of the most perfect world ?
?
Thus, because physics must be obeyed, sometimes crap happens.
?
* As a related and possibly explanatory?oint, L's universe
completely is nonlocal. 
?
Roger , rclo...@verizon.net
8/11/2012 
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Stephen P. King 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-11, 01:56:41
Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ?


Hi Roger,

?? I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about 
Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony?


On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote:

Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say
contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your
monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling
agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and
neurophilosophy.



-- 
Onward!

Stephen

"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." 
~ Francis Bacon
-- 
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 
everyth