Re: A remark on Richard's paper

On 8/23/2012 11:00 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 8/23/2012 8:07 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for the compliment. I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chal

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 8/23/2012 8:07 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Stephan, > > Thanks for the compliment. > I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chalmers and S_T > Yau. > > > Dear Richard, > > You are most welcome. I have learned to

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

Dear Jesse, Thank you for this very nice remark. I will have to think about it and read your reference. On 8/23/2012 8:19 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says: 'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my u

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

On 8/23/2012 8:07 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Stephan, Thanks for the compliment. I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chalmers and S_T Yau. Dear Richard, You are most welcome. I have learned to value the ideas of other people, simply because one can never know what on

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

My apologies. When Chalmers used the words "godelian argument" I thought he was referring to Godel. Now I can see I misread it. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Jesse Mazer wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > >> Jesse, >> >> This is what Chalmers says in the 95

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > Jesse, > > This is what Chalmers says in the 95 paper you link about the second > Penrose argument, the one in my paper: > > " 3.5 As far as I can determine, this argument is free of the obvious > flaws that plague other Gödelian arguments

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

What Gödel discovered were that the set of true statements in mathematics, (integer arithmetics) can not be demonstrated by a finite set of axioms. And invented a way to discover axioms with means of an automatic procedure, diagonalization, that the most basic interpreted program can perform. But t

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

Jesse, This is what Chalmers says in the 95 paper you link about the second Penrose argument, the one in my paper: " 3.5 As far as I can determine, this argument is free of the obvious flaws that plague other Gödelian arguments, such as Lucas's argument and Penrose's earlier arguments. If it is f

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

A quibble with the beginning of Richard's paper. On the first page it says: 'It is beyond the scope of this paper and admittedly beyond my understanding to delve into Gödelian logic, which seems to be self-referential proof by contradiction, except to mention that Penrose in Shadows of the Mind(19

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Honestly I do not find the Gödel theorem a limitation for computers. I think that Penrose and other did a right translation from the Gódel theorem to a problem of a Turing machine,. But this translation can be done in a different way. It is possible to design a program that modify itself by addin

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

Stephan, Thanks for the compliment. I finally got someone with smarts to read it other than Chalmers and S_T Yau. Time inflates along with 3 dimensions in the big bang. Leaving 6 dimensions behind to compactify or curl up into tiny balls 1000 planck lengths across each with 500 holes. So each 6-

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > >> Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or > >> nothing), just like the sentence "You can interpret whatever you want > >> into > >> this sentence..." or like the stuff that monkeys type o

Re: A remark on Richard's paper

Dear Richard, Your paper is very interesting. It reminds me a lot of Stephen Wolfram's cellular automaton theory. I only have one big problem with it. The 10d manifold would be a single fixed structure that, while conceivably capable of running the c

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 11:11 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > >> >>> So what is your definition of computer, and what is your > >> >>> evidence/reasoning > >> >>> that you yourself are not contained in that definition? > >> >>> > >> >> There is no perfect definition of computer

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/23/2012 4:53 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg > wrote: > The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined externally. I see, you did it but

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things > intentionally. This means neither random nor completely determined > externally. > I see, you did it but you didn't do it for a reason and you didn't do it for no reason. I think Lewis

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 8/23/2012 2:18 PM, benjayk wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: >Each program has its own separate, non-overlapping, contiguous memory >space. This may be true from your perspective, but if you actually run the UD it just uses its own memory space. What constitutes the memory space of the

Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof

On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then AUDA translates everything in UDA in terms of numbers and sequences of numbers, making the "body problem" into a problem of arithmetic. It is literally an infinite interview with the universal machine, made finite thanks to the modal logic above,

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 2:35 PM, benjayk wrote: OK, take the sentence: > > 'Not all sentences have unambigous truth values - by the way you won't be > able to determine that this sentence doesn't have a unambigous truth value > by using a computer ' > OK, if I changed "by using a computer" to "

Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof

On 8/23/2012 2:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You recently allude to a disagreement between us, but I (meta)disagree with such an idea: I use the scientific method, which means that you cannot disagree with me without showing a precise flaw at some step in the reasoning. You seem to follow the s

Re: The hypocracy of materialism

2012/8/23 John Clark > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > > > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing >> to do. >> > > Correct. > > > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological >> firewall between mind and matter. >> >

Re: The hypocracy of materialism

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing > to do. > Correct. > But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological > firewall between mind and matter. > I make changes in the matter of your br

Re: On (platonic) intuition

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > Do computers have intuition ? > > Certainly. The self driving cars that the people at Google and others have had so much success with lately wouldn't work without intuition; the car's memory banks are filled with statistical laws and rules of t

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

> > >John Clark Aug 23 01:08PM -0400 > > >We do things because of the laws of nature OR we do not do things >because >of the laws of nature, and if we do not then we are random. > > > The laws of nature are such that they demand that we do things intentionally. T

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Sorry, I am not going to answer to your whole post, because frankly the points you make are not very interesting to me. John Clark-12 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk > wrote: > > >> > 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by >> programming a computer

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> Taking the universal dovetailer, it could really mean everything (or >> nothing), just like the sentence "You can interpret whatever you want >> into >> this sentence..." or like the stuff that monkeys type on typewriters. >> >> > A sentence (any string of information)

Re: Male Proof and female acceptance of proof

On 21 Aug 2012, at 21:42, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/21/2012 2:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Aug 2012, at 12:12, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno and Stephen, This is the bicameral mind again. Right brain must accept left brain decisions for human safety. Ought must rule over is (or e

Re: The bicameral mind

Dear Alberto, I agree with you 100%. I have trouble classifying myself. I am not conservative with regard to the current orthodoxy in physics and yet am conservative when it comes to philosophical ideas in the sense of rejecting relativism and deconstructivism. Post-modern progressives see

Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

On 8/23/2012 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King hmmm. Quanta and monads are singular entities. QM has the dualism particle/wave Monadology has extended/inextended. These might be construed as similar. But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective unless the wa

Re: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe

Hi Richard Ruquist Sorry, I used the word God instead of supreme monad. I did indicate that the first time at least, "Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God..." Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything c

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywithachanceofthunderstorms

Hi Richard Ruquist What isn't true ? Give me an example. Leibniz isn't a religion, but doesn't contradict relion. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content ---

Re: Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard Ruquist Leibniz does not contradict science in any way. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything

Re: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

The waveform is subjective as it represents a particular quantum state. In COMP terms it is 3p. But comp people may not think of it as subjective since every quantum state is realized and therefore all quanta are objective. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:28 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. Ki

Re: Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard Ruquist I meant that literally, not as an insult. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list

Re: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

Hi Stephen P. King hmmm. Quanta and monads are singular entities. QM has the dualism particle/wave Monadology has extended/inextended. These might be construed as similar. But QM doesn't to my knowledge have the dualism objective/subjective unless the waveform is subjective. Roger Clough,

Re: Emergence

Hi Richard, You mean "provable statements" not "truths" per se... I guess. OK, I haven't given that trope much thought I try to keep Godel's theorems reserved for special occasions. It has my experience that they can be very easily misapplied. On 8/23/2012 1:24 PM, Richard Ruquist w

Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms

Hi Roger, OK, but I am a bit partial toward descriptions that allow for something approximating a mathematical description, if only to make them more intelligible in technical communications. The Swami's discussion is more theological than anything else. On 8/23/2012 1:18 PM, Roger Cloug

Re: Emergence

Stephan, Strong emergence follows from Godel's incompleteness because in any consistent system there are truths that cannot be derived from the axioms of the system. That is what is meant by incompleteness. Sounds like what you just said. No? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stephen P. K

Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard, OK! I'll read it. On 8/23/2012 1:16 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote: http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: Hi Richard, I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that

Re: Emergence

Hi Richard, Ah! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_emergence "Strong emergence is a type of emergence in which the emergent property is irreducible to its individual constituents." OK, but "irreducibility" would have almost the same meaning as implying the non-existence of relations bet

Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe

More religion On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > > The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. > It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads > are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . > > Thus the supreme monad, which ch

Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms

Hi Stephen P. King It's from http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/com/com_leib.html and was just the first link that came up in Google. Just Google on monad and a whole set of other links will pop up. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd h

Re: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms

Millions of times cause it just ain't true. But I do not want to interfere with your religion In string theory monads are definitely things in themselves. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Monads are reference to things, are like bookmarks. > They ar

Re: Pratt theory

http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > Hi Richard, > > I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an > explanation of what you mean by "...method of Godel sufficient to define a > consciousness"? Are you conside

Re: Re: Pratt theory

I know and that's not science On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try > to follow him as closely as I can. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/23/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd hav

Re: Re: Pratt theory

Don't be silly with me On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. > All you have to do is open your eyes. > > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/23/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to i

Re: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

Roger, All I have ever given you is critical thinking based on string theory. but you seem uninterested. How does parroting what Leibniz amount to critical thinking. It's really religion. Your limiting yourself by not learning string theory which is all about monads.. Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012

Re: Re: The ontological firewall between mind and body

Hi Stephen P. King No, it's not just a matter of perspective, and his philosophy is illogical. The firewall is there to separate things that should not and can not possibly mix or exhange anything between them by themselves. Most prominently, in materialism, it is the firewall between mind

Re: Emergence

It is said that strong emergence comes from Godel incompleteness. Weak emergence is like your grains of sand. On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of > inter-communications between monads

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM, benjayk wrote: > > 'You won't be able to determine the truth of this statement by > programming a computer' > If true then you won't be able to determine the truth of this statement PERIOD. Any limitation a computer has you have the exact same limitation. And th

Re: Re: Emergence

Hi Stephen P. King "Complexity" seems to be the threshold of a magical transformation. The more commonsense solution or explanation is to invoke Leibniz-like downward causation. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so ever

Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

Hi Roger, I like the idea that pure QM systems are the best example of a monad. On 8/23/2012 11:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King Right. "The world is filled with monads"was just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances

Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Stephen P. King I try to avoid the word "existence" because, as you show, it can be used in a number of ways ontologically. That's why I use extended and inextended instead. Or try to. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent h

Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms

Hi Roger, What is this quote from? It is interesting! I don't quite agree with it, as the centers are not all that a monad must include for its definition... On 8/23/2012 10:29 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > " Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing > the

Re: The ontological firewall between mind and body

Hi Roger, "ontological firewall" ? Could you elaborate on exactly what that means to you? BY Pratt, the difference between the two is just a matter of perspective, like the figure-ground. One cannot see both at the same time without cancelling both out. Pratt builds on how the mind and bod

Re: Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

Hi Richard Ruquist Yes, I try to preach Leibniz chapter and verse. I'm still waiting for critical thinking from you. Whatever is in spacetime, such as a string, is extended. Monads aree inextended. I try not to dabble with string theory, at least at this stage. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon

Re: Emergence

Hi Richard, Pratt's theory does not address this. Could emergence be the result of inter-communications between monads and not an objective process at all? It is useful to think about how to solve the Sorites paradox to see what I mean here. A heap is said to emerge from a collection of gr

Re: Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms

Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are reference to things, are like bookmarks. They aren't the things themselves. How many times do I have tio keep explaining this to you ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could f

Re: Pratt theory

Hi Roger, By Existence I mean all that is necessarily possible. By this definition mathematical points and theoretical domains "exist". Existence is property neutral, neither defining or excluding what is or what is not. It is not a property. It is what the philosophers attempted to mean

Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard, I am not sure what you mean. Is there a paper or article that gives an explanation of what you mean by "...method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness"? Are you considering how meta-theory Y can prove statements in a theory X where X /subtheory of Y? On 8/23/2012 9:

Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard Ruquist My version of Leibniz is not my creation, I try to follow him as closely as I can. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Ri

Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard Ruquist No leap of faith is needed for consciousness. All you have to do is open your eyes. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: R

Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe

The Supreme monad is necessary because it is necessary. It is the only monad that can perceive and act. The other monads are linked to it but passive and have no windows (are bllnd) . Thus the supreme monad, which choose to call God, is like a CPU (central processing unit or "chip") of a net of

Re: Re: On thoughts appearing out of nowhere

Hi Richard Ruquist IMHO Intelligence pervades Nature. Because life is intelligent to some degree, it can't function without knowing how to create energy out of energy. Nothing would work if Nature didn't contain some innate intelligence. Certainly intuition would be impossible. Leibniz would sa

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> >>> So what is your definition of computer, and what is your >> >>> evidence/reasoning >> >>> that you yourself are not contained in that definition? >> >>> >> >> There is no perfect definition of computer. I take computer to mean >> >> the >> >> usual physical computer

Re: What are monads ? A difficulty

Roger, It seems to me that you are preaching the religion of monads based on Leibniz. Thus as in most religions, there is no opportunity for critical thinking and research. Almost all of what you say of monads below disagrees with string theory. BTW I do not have any questions you are tired of a

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >> > > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >

What are monads ? A difficulty

Hi Stephen P. King Right. "The world is filled with monads"was just a way of saying things, just a rhetorical phrase. All physical things in the world are substances rather than monads. If you can measure it, it's not a monad. If you can think of it, in some cases (see below) it is a monad. Mo

Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms

How do you know that? On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Richard Ruquist > > Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 8/23/2012 > Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so > everything could func

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:12 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk > > wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >>> > >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk > >>> wrote: > >>> > > > Jason Resch-2 wrote: > >>

Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy withachanceofthunderstorms

Hi Stephen P. King No problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-23, 08:26:50 S

Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi Stephen P. King If you can measure it, or potentially do so it's extended. Mass. size, color, voltage, etc. Whatever physical science deals with. Science thus deals exclusively with extended objects. If you can think of something, the thought (Where did i put that damn tie ?) is inextended

Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms

Hi Stephen P. King " Leibniz propounds a pluralistic metaphysical idealism by reducing the reality of the universe to centres of force, which are all ultimately spiritual in their nature. Every centre of force is a substance, an individual, and is different from other centres of force. Such c

Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudy with achanceofthunderstorms

Hi Richard Ruquist Monads are simply a smart bunch of ASCII characters. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everyt

Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Stephen P. King "Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck Max Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receive

Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi meekerdb IMHO Empty strings are not monads, they are just empty strings. Monads are inextended. Even though they may contain nothing, empty strings are still extended as I see it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so e

it takes two to tango. awareness = subject + object

Hi meekerdb This is not rocket science. To be aware you must have both subject and object: awareness = subject + object Neither materialism nor science can provide a subject, since a subject must be subjective. So neither one will permit awareness. Start studying the mnonadology. Roger Cl

The ontological firewall between mind and body

Hi Stephen P. King Pratt does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between extended (body) and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out that problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God

The ontological fifrewall between mind and body

Hi Stephen P. King He does not seem to understand that there is an ontological firewall between extended (body) and inextended (mind) entities. As far as I know, only monadology can wipe out that problem. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'

Re: Scientific prose vs poetry

I beg to differ: Fiction and performance is where people lie to an audience/readership for money, sometimes stumbling on something true. Sometimes even funny, movingly, true. Science is where people do the true stuff. Sometimes bullshitting people for money. Expertise and its derived authority i

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 12:59 PM, benjayk >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:49 AM, benjayk >> >> > wrote: >> >> >

Re: On thoughts appearing out of nowhere

Roger, Well, regarding human consciousness, I believe that our subsconscious contains an invisible intelligence that seems to provide answers that we cannot figure out consciously. Call it the soul if you wish, or the higher self, but may I suggest that that entity may have contact with the super

The hypocracy of materialism

Hi John, If you are a materialist, rejecting God is a perfectly sensible thing to do. But materialism is bad philosophy, since it ignores the ontological firewall between mind and matter. Naturally, it cannot solve the mind/body problem, and has no clue what mind or God is, but demands proof of an

Re: Pratt theory

Roger, Who cares if a theory is not substantial. What matters is if the theory correctly or approximately models the substance. You are arguing against a straw man of your creation. But thank you for reminding me that ideas are emergent and the incompleteness of consistent systems that Godel pro

On thoughts appearing out of nowhere

Hi Richard, That recalls an item recently read somwewhere, that thoughts appear spontaneously (platonically) or create themselves through some unseen intelligence). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could f

Monads and intuition

Hi meekerdb You said " According to you, computers are never aware of anything, so everything they produce is intuition." No, intuition is an experience. You need awareness even though it may be subconscious. it is known, however, that monads however are capable of subconscious or unconsciou

Re: Pratt theory

Hi Richard Ruquist Godelian theory may or may not explain or pertain to consciousness, but it is not consciousness itself. One can be conscious of an iidea, but ideas are the contents of consciouness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have

Re: Re: Pratt theory

Hi Stephen P. King It all depends on what you mean by existence. If by existence you mean dasein (actually being there), then mathematical points or theoetical domains do not exist. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so

Re: Pratt theory

Stephan, Is not the method of Godel sufficient to define a consciousness although the last step to consciousness is a leap of faith? Richard On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > On 8/23/2012 8:01 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: > > Stephan, > > But Pratt theor

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > > > On Aug 22, 2012, at 1:57 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:07 PM, benjayk >>> wrote: >>> Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:48 AM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >>>

Re: Re: [SPAM] Re: Re: Re: NewsFlash: Monadic weather today will be cloudywith a chanceofthunderstorms

Hi meekerdb Yes, I was wrong, strings do have extension. So they are in spacetime. String theory however does not have extension, so I at least can treat it monadically, since monads have no extension. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd ha

On intuition and Trust (faith)

Hi John Mikes I think intuition is something like looking for a familiar face in a crowd if you are lost. That somehow has to do with context or memory. One way home feels more right than the other way home. Maybe you don't know the name of the street, or even if the street itself looks famil

Re: Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi Richard Ruquist That's why I am pleased ro have you as a fellow explorer. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver:

Re: ...or Plato's All ...On perception (only done directly by God)

Hi Roger, I am just trying for precision. ;-) On 8/23/2012 8:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah), to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely wideband. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

Re: On perception (only done directly by God)

Hi Roger, What purpose does the idea of an actual Supreme Monad have? The point is that /there does not exist a single Boolean algebraic description of its perception/. We can still imagine what such a supremum exist but such only are real for

Re: Cosmic Consciousness

Hi Richard, Ron Garret's talk here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEaecUuEqfc is about the best discussion in lay terms that I have found. See at 0:53:46 that there is no "real" one classical universe. It is just an abstraction that we invent in our minds to make "big picture" sense of th

...or Plato's All ...On perception (only done directly by God)

I must add, that if you don't like the judeo-christian God (Jehovah), to do the perceiving, the All of Platonism is by definition infinitely wideband. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/23/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function." -

On perception (only done directly by God)

Hi Although monads do not perceive the world directly, whatever does it for them (the Supreme Monad or to use a word despised by some on the list, God) must have a very wide bandwidth. Leibniz says that perception of bodies is only possible if the receptor (God) has wideband ability since the o

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi Roger, Compact manifolds are not unique per se (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_manifold) but can be categorized to some extent. The trick is figuring out the transformations between them (the diffeomorphism of GR is a version of this). I suspect that canonical projections

Re: Leibniz's theodicy: a nonlocal and hopefully best mereology

Hi Roger, I agree in spirit with you but cringe at the use of the word "filled". Do you have any ideas as to the mereological relation between monads? On 8/23/2012 8:08 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard, There are an infinite number of different monads, since the world is filled with th

  1   2   >