The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality

2013-11-15 Thread Roger Clough
The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality. Although I cannot find a direct reference in Leibniz's writings, they have not all been translated. Nevertheless Leibniz's model of perception is seemingly based on the high technology of the 17th ce

Re: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality

2013-11-15 Thread Richard Ruquist
Where's the math? On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality. > > Although I cannot find a direct reference in Leibniz's writings, they > have not all been translated. Nevert

Re: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality

2013-11-15 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 15 Nov 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: Where's the math? Good question. I comment Roger below: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality. Although I cannot find a direct re

Re: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality

2013-11-15 Thread LizR
Roger below: > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > >> The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality. >> >> Although I cannot find a direct reference in Leibniz's writings, they >> have not all be

Re: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality

2013-11-16 Thread Bruno Marchal
mber 2013 04:57, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 15 Nov 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: Where's the math? Good question. I comment Roger below: On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Roger Clough wrote: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality. Althou

Re: The self as lens: Leibniz's lens-like model of perception and reality

2013-11-16 Thread LizR
.. > > :) > > > > > On 16 November 2013 04:57, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 15 Nov 2013, at 16:30, Richard Ruquist wrote: >> >> Where's the math? >> >> >> Good question. >> >> I comment Roger below: >> >> &