Re: Re: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 8:20 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi spudboy100 Anything that moves according to rules, a program, regulations, a control, etc. is not mind. Mind has to be free and unconstrained, at least in principle. Why? Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: spudboy100 Receiver: everything-list,rclough Time: 2013-08-27, 13:14:57 Subject: Re: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change My B in law posited, what moves the cursor, using a pc as an analogy of mind? Of course the cursor can be programmed to move and act, by a program, but then who made the programmer? Leibniz and other thinkers may have asked, who made God? Terrific question. My sense of things is the use of an old fashioned or a new fashioned map. One is paper and you use your eyes and fingers, another map is you punch in the destination, and a women's voice speaks Turn right in 5 miles! Both are maps. Similarly asking who created God is akin to asking your maps, where is the next alien intelligent civilization in the Galaxy? Our little maps cannot tell us, because we're out of range. Having said this, where are the space aliens, or where is God, may not be detectable on our maps, simply because we haven't explored the universe sufficiently. Physicist, Freeman Dyson, has written that to know more things we have to have increasingly better observation, and to do this, we have to have improved tools for better experimentation and observation. The Self may be detectable or comprehendible through better tools, and one of these tools is assuredly mathematics. Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough To: - Roger Clough Sent: Mon, Aug 26, 2013 3:31 am Subject: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, which one might call the Self. The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. In other words, the internal active agent of change is final causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as current models of the mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
Hi spudboy100 Anything that moves according to rules, a program, regulations, a control, etc. is not mind. Mind has to be free and unconstrained, at least in principle. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough - Receiving the following content - From: spudboy100 Receiver: everything-list,rclough Time: 2013-08-27, 13:14:57 Subject: Re: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change My B in law posited, what moves the cursor, using a pc as an analogy of mind? Of course the cursor can be programmed to move and act, by a program, but then who made the programmer? Leibniz and other thinkers may have asked, who made God? Terrific question. My sense of things is the use of an old fashioned or a new fashioned map. One is paper and you use your eyes and fingers, another map is you punch in the destination, and a women's voice speaks Turn right in 5 miles! Both are maps. Similarly asking who created God is akin to asking your maps, where is the next alien intelligent civilization in the Galaxy? Our little maps cannot tell us, because we're out of range. Having said this, where are the space aliens, or where is God, may not be detectable on our maps, simply because we haven't explored the universe sufficiently. Physicist, Freeman Dyson, has written that to know more things we have to have increasingly better observation, and to do this, we have to have improved tools for better experimentation and observation. The Self may be detectable or comprehendible through better tools, and one of these tools is assuredly mathematics. Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough To: - Roger Clough Sent: Mon, Aug 26, 2013 3:31 am Subject: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, which one might call the Self. The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. In other words, the internal active agent of change is final causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as current models of the mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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. -- 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: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
My B in law posited, what moves the cursor, using a pc as an analogy of mind? Of course the cursor can be programmed to move and act, by a program, but then who made the programmer? Leibniz and other thinkers may have asked, who made God? Terrific question. My sense of things is the use of an old fashioned or a new fashioned map. One is paper and you use your eyes and fingers, another map is you punch in the destination, and a women's voice speaks Turn right in 5 miles! Both are maps. Similarly asking who created God is akin to asking your maps, where is the next alien intelligent civilization in the Galaxy? Our little maps cannot tell us, because we're out of range. Having said this, where are the space aliens, or where is God, may not be detectable on our maps, simply because we haven't explored the universe sufficiently. Physicist, Freeman Dyson, has written that to know more things we have to have increasingly better observation, and to do this, we have to have improved tools for better experimentation and observation. The Self may be detectable or comprehendible through better tools, and one of these tools is assuredly mathematics. Mitch -Original Message- From: Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net To: - Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Sent: Mon, Aug 26, 2013 3:31 am Subject: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, which one might call the Self. The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. In other words, the internal active agent of change is final causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as current models of the mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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. -- 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: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
It should be mentioned that final causation requires downward causation to be operative. See George Ellis for examples of downward causation at the human level. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.2275.pdf Recognising Top-Down Causation George Ellis, University of Cape Town Abstract: One of the basic assumptions implicit in the way physics is usually done is that all causation flows in a bottom up fashion, from micro to macro scales. However this is wrong in many cases in biology, and in particular in the way the brain functions. Here I make the case that it is also wrong in the case of digital computers – the paradigm of mechanistic algorithmic causation - and in many cases in physics, ranging from the origin of the arrow of time to the process of quantum state preparation. I consider some examples from classical physics; from quantum physics; and the case of digital computers, and then explain why it this possible without contradicting the causal powers of the underlying micro physics. Understanding the emergence of genuine complexity out of the underlying physics depends on recognising this kind of causation. It is a missing ingredient in present day theory; and taking it into account may help understand such mysteries as the measurement problem in quantum mechanics: On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change So far, materialistic models of the mind, such as Dennett's, are essentially passive. There is no internal active agent of change, which one might call the Self. The internal active agent of change is desire, which we might define as a mismatch between the current state and a goal. In other words, the internal active agent of change is final causation, which has been discussed by Leibniz as typical of life, and also by Aristotle in his four basic causes of change. This desire to achieve a personal goal appears mentally as an intention, which is the active agent of change. This is what we call the Self, and is the missing element of AI as well as current models of the mind. Dr. Roger B Clough NIST (ret.) [1/1/2000] See my Leibniz site at http://independent.academia.edu/RogerClough -- 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. -- 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: Leibniz's final causation as the Self, the active agent of change
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 06:26:36AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: It should be mentioned that final causation requires downward causation to be operative. Why? The principle of least action in Lagrangian dynamics is an apparent final causation, but no downward causation is in play, as there are no levels. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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.
