Consciousness and the Paranormal — Part 9

[smcder]

"These monads represent Leibniz's answer to the microsubjects postulated by constitutive panpsychism, but are a far more carefully considered concept. Leibniz sees that we cannot simply specify “experience” along with the physical properties of a particle or of whatever other basic component of reality we choose.

He recognizes that the fundamental property of experience is perspective, or a point-of-view on reality, and that this perspective generates the monad's specific representation of what it sees as an objective material universe, but is actually the expression of its relation to all the other monads 43 .

This has similarities to Russell's observation that physics expresses relational dispositions rather than intrinsic properties."

The author also notes Leibnitz's "fractal" view of the world.

Indra's net - Wikipedia

 

[smcder]

"The relationship between the internal changes in perception of monads and the externally perceived universe cannot be causal, because physical causation and mental perception cannot causally connect without falling into the dualist problem of explaining mental causation without viewing the mind as part of the physical system. This is why Leibniz states that “monads have no windows.” The difficulty here is that we see a tight bidirectional correlation between our perceptions and volitions and physical events in in the world. Leibniz answers this with his notorious, although misunderstood, system of pre-established harmony. Contrary to the standard interpretation, this harmony does not require two realms of psychological and physical events set up by God to correlate perfectly and give the impression of a causal relation between the two. Leibinz is well aware of the dangers of falling into such a simplistic interpretation, which elevates our limited notion of causality to an unwarranted metaphysical status and imports physical assumptions into its world of mental qualities. As explained above, the system of correlative perceptions is set up in large part to avoid a clumsy solution like this; although, like any attempt to systematize such a very difficult area of inquiry, it is incomplete, and leaves many questions unanswered."

Unfortunately he doesn't discuss this further in the paper. Sad!

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

"Until recently, Leibniz's system was as a beautifully wrought metaphysical narrative quite detached from practical work in philosophy of mind. Voltaire found the idea “that a drop of urine is an infinity of monads, and that each of these has ideas, however obscure, of the universe as a whole” 52 utterly ridiculous, and Bertrand Russell, on his first reading, famously saw The Monadology “[as] was a kind of fantastic fairy tale, coherent perhaps, but wholly arbitrary 53 .” Russell later changed his opinion, stating that after further reading of Leibniz's correspondence and short papers, “suddenly a flood of light was thrown on all the inmost recesses of Leibniz's philosophical edifice. [and he] saw how its foundations were laid, and how its superstructure rose out of them 54 .” He came to the conclusion that “Leibniz's value as a philosopher is very much greater than that which would result from the customary expositions 55 .” Indeed, much of Russell's system of relational dispositions among physical objects is heavily indebted to Leibniz."

 

[smcder]

"There is also some more current work in the philosophy of quantum mechanics that provides support for conclusions similar to Leibniz's, particularly in relational interpretations of measurement paradoxes, which have become important in attempts to explain bizarre results such as apparent retrocausality in delayed choice experiments. For example, consider the prescience of Leibniz's statement in his letter to Samuel Clarke of 1715 that "motion does not indeed depend on being observed, but it does depend on being able to be observed. There is no motion where there is no change that can be observed. And when there is no change that can be observed there is no change at all. The contrary opinion is grounded on the supposition of a real absolute space, which I have demonstratively refuted." While it is beyond the scope of this paper to go into further detail on his work in physics, I will add that much of Leibniz's correspondence on this and other fields of study remains unpublished."

 

[Soupie]

"This is not to deny that simple physical systems do have simple associated phenomenal qualities, and more complex physical systems, more complex phenomenal qualities, but the latter are not built up from the former in a simple combinatorial manner. In order to see how this could work, we must transition from a view of phenomenal qualities as appendages of physical properties to seeing observed physical properties as perspectival consequences of the phenomenal qualities of components of the world, whether simple or complex.

He recognizes that the fundamental property of experience is perspective, or a point-of-view on reality, and that this perspective generates the monad's specific representation of what it sees as an objective material universe, but is actually the expression of its relation to all the other monads 43 .

The above quotes both capture the point I have been trying to make about NR.

First of all, thanks for these papers. Wonderful. Will need to read. Yes, monads and CAs as we've noted seem analogous.

What I would like to move toward however is a conception of reality as fundamentally non-quantized. But that monads, CAs, electrons, POVs, or what have you emerge from the self-interaction of this fundamentally non-quantized ground.

As noted in one of your quotes, this may be why some have moved toward NM. I look forward to diving into this.

 

[Soupie]

Do you understand what I mean by isomorphic?

I understood you to be saying that while both approaches have different problems, the problems are structurally the same.

 

[smcder]

The above quotes both capture the point I have been trying to make about NR.

First of all, thanks for these papers. Wonderful. Will need to read. Yes, monads and CAs as we've noted seem analogous.

What I would like to move toward however is a conception of reality as fundamentally non-quantized. But that monads, CAs, electrons, POVs, or what have you emerge from the self-interaction of this fundamentally non-quantized ground.

As noted in one of your quotes, this may be why some have moved toward NM. I look forward to diving into this.

Why have some moved to Neutral Monism? This is the quote I remember:

Several authors consider the combination problem to be insurmountable, and to require a retreat from a strong panphsychist view to a neutral monism.

But of course he follows this with:

I argue that a reappraisal of the work of Leibniz in this area gives an informative perspective on this problem, and moves us further toward its dissolution.

So your retreat may be a bit hasty ...

@Soupie says:

"What I would like to move toward however is a conception of reality as fundamentally non-quantized. But that monads, CAs, electrons, POVs, or what have you emerge from the self-interaction of this fundamentally non-quantized ground."

Splain it to me!

 

[Michael Allen]

If we do that, what do we get?

The above seems an interesting "Mischung" of eastern philosophy (papanca) and phenomenology - which has its own acknowledgement of conceptual proliferation
... but what do you do with it?

Firstly I think it is a helpful reminder of the seductive powers of labeling. Regarding the purpose, I suppose I like to banish illusions.

 

[Constance]

Firstly I think it is a helpful reminder of the seductive powers of labeling. Regarding the purpose, I suppose I like to banish illusions.

That sounds like a relatively straightforward program. What I would like to hear from you is an explication of your thesis. What illusions do you think you can banish, and what illusion(s) might be found to persist after you banish some illusions? In other words, what firm reality remains for us to contemplate after you have banished the illusions you claim to identify? And what are the grounds you can establish for that firm reality?

 

[Soupie]

Why have some moved to Neutral Monism? This is the quote I remember:

Several authors consider the combination problem to be insurmountable, and to require a retreat from a strong panphsychist view to a neutral monism.

But of course he follows this with:

I argue that a reappraisal of the work of Leibniz in this area gives an informative perspective on this problem, and moves us further toward its dissolution.

So your retreat may be a bit hasty ...

@Soupie says:

"What I would like to move toward however is a conception of reality as fundamentally non-quantized. But that monads, CAs, electrons, POVs, or what have you emerge from the self-interaction of this fundamentally non-quantized ground."

Splain it to me!

I'm not retreating from panpsychism/CR as I never fully embraced it. My interest in CR has been grounded in the way in which it reveals matter to be a product of our perceptions, as articulated in the quotes above.

If you recall, I wondered how consciousness/awareness could be primary outlined by Kafatos as well.

How could there exist a fundamental and fundamentally non-quantized substrate?

I think there are multiple albeit priliminary lines of inquiring which seems to indicate that reality is so. High on the list for me is Roberts articulation of QST which is as materialist as materialism gets. The metaphysics he ultimately articulates is one of quanta consisting of subquanta consisting of subquanta consisting of subquanta. All the way up and all the way down.

There is no there there at least in materialist terms. Its interaction.

But what is doing the interacting?

Besides the articulation of "pure experience/actuality" outlined by James above there is this:

UBT - CTMU Wiki

"In the CTMU, UBT (unbound telesis) is the ground-state of existence arrived at by stripping away the constraints of reality. Since there are no distributed constraints to limit its content, UBT is all-inclusive, infinite potential, and the source of all freedom.

Reality is created by filtratively emerging from this potential by the process of telic recursion. Since reality has a self-defined informational boundary distinguishing it from its complement (unactualized potential or unreality), it has recognizable content and structure. On the other hand, UBT is "a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists."[1]

Definition
Unbound Telesis (UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.[2]"

 

[smcder]

I'm not retreating from panpsychism/CR as I never fully embraced it. My interest in CR has been grounded in the way in which it reveals matter to be a product of our perceptions, as articulated in the quotes above.

If you recall, I wondered how consciousness/awareness could be primary outlined by Kafatos as well.

How could there exist a fundamental and fundamentally non-quantized substrate?

I think there are multiple albeit priliminary lines of inquiring which seems to indicate that reality is so. High on the list for me is Roberts articulation of QST which is as materialist as materialism gets. The metaphysics he ultimately articulates is one of quanta consisting of subquanta consisting of subquanta consisting of subquanta. All the way up and all the way down.

There is no there there at least in materialist terms. Its interaction.

But what is doing the interacting?

Besides the articulation of "pure experience/actuality" outlined by James above there is this:

UBT - CTMU Wiki

"In the CTMU, UBT (unbound telesis) is the ground-state of existence arrived at by stripping away the constraints of reality. Since there are no distributed constraints to limit its content, UBT is all-inclusive, infinite potential, and the source of all freedom.

Reality is created by filtratively emerging from this potential by the process of telic recursion. Since reality has a self-defined informational boundary distinguishing it from its complement (unactualized potential or unreality), it has recognizable content and structure. On the other hand, UBT is "a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists."[1]

Definition
Unbound Telesis (UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.[2]"

That's the super HIQ guy right? You have to 'splain his CTMU theory to get in his school, I think. The Mega Foundation.

He also has some guns on him ...

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

"1999, Langan and others formed a non-profit corporation called the "Mega Foundation" to "create and implement programs that aid in the development of severely gifted individuals and their ideas" (the organization's designation for those with IQs of 164 or above).[3][7]

Langan told Muscle Magazine that "you cannot describe the universe completely with any accuracy unless you're willing to admit that it's both physical and mental in nature"[11]and that the CTMU "explains the connection between mind and reality, therefore the presence of cognition and universe in the same phrase".[12] He calls his proposal "a true 'Theory of Everything', a cross between John Archibald Wheeler's 'Participatory Universe' and Stephen Hawking's 'Imaginary Time' theory of cosmology."[4] In conjunction with his ideas, Langan has claimed: "You can prove the existence of God, the soul and an afterlife, using mathematics."[7]

The CTMU theory has been criticized for its use of convoluted language. Langan's use of terms he has invented (or redefined) has made his exposition obscure. Some suggest this is deliberate.[13]"



Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

On Creationism

"I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible."[12"

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[smcder]

P does not equal NP

"In a 2014 radio interview, Langan said that he has worked on the P versus NP problem and thinks he can prove that P does not equal NP.[14]"

P versus NP problem - Wikipedia

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

Please read some of this, the beginnings of a book by Susan Stewart entitled Poetry and the Fate of the Senses. This might not sound as if it is relevant to the metaphysical/ontological conjectures being entertained currently in this thread, but it is.

Amazon.com: Poetry and the Fate of the Senses (9780226774145): Susan Stewart: Books

 

[smcder]

I'm not retreating from panpsychism/CR as I never fully embraced it. My interest in CR has been grounded in the way in which it reveals matter to be a product of our perceptions, as articulated in the quotes above.

If you recall, I wondered how consciousness/awareness could be primary outlined by Kafatos as well.

How could there exist a fundamental and fundamentally non-quantized substrate?

I think there are multiple albeit priliminary lines of inquiring which seems to indicate that reality is so. High on the list for me is Roberts articulation of QST which is as materialist as materialism gets. The metaphysics he ultimately articulates is one of quanta consisting of subquanta consisting of subquanta consisting of subquanta. All the way up and all the way down.

There is no there there at least in materialist terms. Its interaction.

But what is doing the interacting?

Besides the articulation of "pure experience/actuality" outlined by James above there is this:

UBT - CTMU Wiki

"In the CTMU, UBT (unbound telesis) is the ground-state of existence arrived at by stripping away the constraints of reality. Since there are no distributed constraints to limit its content, UBT is all-inclusive, infinite potential, and the source of all freedom.

Reality is created by filtratively emerging from this potential by the process of telic recursion. Since reality has a self-defined informational boundary distinguishing it from its complement (unactualized potential or unreality), it has recognizable content and structure. On the other hand, UBT is "a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists."[1]

Definition
Unbound Telesis (UBT) - a primordial realm of infocognitive potential free of informational constraint. In CTMU cosmogony, "nothingness" is informationally defined as zero constraint or pure freedom (unbound telesis or UBT), and the apparent construction of the universe is explained as a self-restriction of this potential. In a realm of unbound ontological potential, defining a constraint is not as simple as merely writing it down; because constraints act restrictively on content, constraint and content must be defined simultaneously in a unified syntax-state relationship.[2]"

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[Constance]

On the other hand, UBT is "a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists."[1]

You might find some kind of abstract satisfaction in the theory you describe, but I wonder how it meets the specifics of our lived experience in the world and the philosophies developed from the basis of our understanding of the existentials that we are and the existentials among which we live and produce our social and cultural meanings. However microphysical particles might be imagined to experience their existence in "a realm of zero constraint and infinite possibility where neither boundary nor content exists," I don't see how we can identify with that proposed primitive existence given the real constraints and boundaries within which we find ourselves existing at this point in the evolution of the universe.

 

[Soupie]

@smcder

 

[Soupie]

... I wonder how it meets the specifics of our lived experience in the world and the philosophies developed from the basis of our understanding of the existentials that we are and the existentials among which we live and produce our social and cultural meanings.

It is the proposed ground from which the above evolved and developed.

I don't see how we can identify with that proposed primitive existence given the real constraints and boundaries within which we find ourselves existing at this point in the evolution of the universe.

I don't either.

 

[smcder]

@smcder

Not at all! I think he's a fascinating guy, I remember reading about him years ago ... he was featured in some weightlifting magazines.