Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

How can intelligence be physical ?

Expand Messages
  • Roger Clough
    Hi socratus@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all, How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ? How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing
    Message 1 of 21 , Feb 2, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
       
      How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
      How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
      How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
       
      IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
       
      One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.

      Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.

      In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:

      Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.

      But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.

      Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.

      Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).

       
       
      ----- Receiving the following content -----
      Receiver: Everything List
      Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
      Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

      On Feb 1, 7:51�pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
      > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
      >
      > > �Hi
      socr...@... <javascript:>
      >
      > > Feynman was wrong. �Life isn't physics,
      > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
      >
      > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
      > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
      > could it really be otherwise?
      >
      > Craig
      ======

      In the name of reason and common sense:
      How could it really be otherwise?

      --
      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+
      unsubscribe@....
      To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
      Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
      For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


      ____________________________________________
      DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org
    • Philip Benjamin
      [Philip Benjamin]. Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of what is not physical? Everything
      Message 2 of 21 , Feb 2, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


        Best regards
        Philip  
         
         
        Philip Benjamin
        PhD.MSc.MA

        Evidentialist

        "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

        Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

        ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

         http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

        "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




         

        To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
        From: rclough@...
        Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
        Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

         
        Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
         
        How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
        How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
        How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
         
        IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
         
        One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.

        Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
        In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:

        Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
        Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
        Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
         
         
        ----- Receiving the following content -----
        Receiver: Everything List
        Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
        Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

        On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
        > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
        >
        > > 燞i
        socr...@... <javascript:>
        >
        > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
        > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
        >
        > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
        > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
        > could it really be otherwise?
        >
        > Craig
        ======

        In the name of reason and common sense:
        How could it really be otherwise?

        --
        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+
        unsubscribe@....
        To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
        Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


        ____________________________________________
        DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org

      • Roger Clough
        Hi Philip Benjamin + Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical. ... From: Philip Benjamin
        Message 3 of 21 , Feb 3, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Philip Benjamin +
           
          Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
          of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
           
           
          ----- Receiving the following content -----
          Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
          Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

           

          [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


          Best regards
          Philip  
           
           
          Philip Benjamin
          PhD.MSc.MA

          Evidentialist

          "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

          Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

          ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

           http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

          "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




           

          To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
          From: rclough@...
          Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
          Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

           
          Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
           
          How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
          How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
          How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
           
          IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
           
          One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.

          Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
          In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:

          Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
          Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
          Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
           
           
          ----- Receiving the following content -----
          Receiver: Everything List
          Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
          Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

          On Feb 1, 7:51�pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
          > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
          >
          > > �Hi
          socr...@... <javascript:>
          >
          > > Feynman was wrong. �Life isn't physics,
          > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
          >
          > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
          > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
          > could it really be otherwise?
          >
          > Craig
          ======

          In the name of reason and common sense:
          How could it really be otherwise?

          --
          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+
          unsubscribe@....
          To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
          Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
          For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


          ____________________________________________
          DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org

        • Philip Benjamin
          [Philip Benjamin] Extension in space is a very poor definition of physicality. Just because Descartes said it, does not mean it aught to be sufficient.
          Message 4 of 21 , Feb 3, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            [Philip Benjamin] "Extension in space" is a very poor definition of physicality. Just because Descartes said it, does not mean it aught to be sufficient. "Feeling" by itself and "thought " by itself do not stand alone. None of that mean anything without its specific context for a specific moment. Feeling of what? Thought of what? Those are the real questions. Otherwise they by themselves are unreal and do not belong to science.


            Best regards
            Philip  
             
             
            Philip Benjamin
            PhD.MSc.MA

            Evidentialist

            "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

            Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

            ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

             http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

            "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




             

            To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
            From: rclough@...
            Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 06:38:43 -0500
            Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

             
            Hi Philip Benjamin +
             
            Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
            of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
             
             
            ----- Receiving the following content -----
            Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
            Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

             

            [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


            Best regards
            Philip  
             
             
            Philip Benjamin
            PhD.MSc.MA

            Evidentialist

            "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

            Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

            ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

             http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

            "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




             

            To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
            From: rclough@...
            Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
            Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

             
            Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
             
            How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
            How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
            How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
             
            IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
             
            One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.
            Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
            In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:
            Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
            Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
            Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
             
             
            ----- Receiving the following content -----
            Receiver: Everything List
            Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
            Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

            On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
            > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
            >
            > > 燞i
            socr...@... <javascript:>
            >
            > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
            > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
            >
            > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
            > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
            > could it really be otherwise?
            >
            > Craig
            ======

            In the name of reason and common sense:
            How could it really be otherwise?

            --
            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+
            unsubscribe@....
            To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
            Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


            ____________________________________________
            DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org



          • Cass Silva
            We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can t we have thought waves? Cass ... rclough@verizon.net ... and Brain] How can intelligence be
            Message 5 of 21 , Feb 3, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
              Cass


              From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
              To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
              Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

               
              Hi Philip Benjamin +
               
              Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
              of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
               
               
              ----- Receiving the following content -----
              Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
              Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

               
              [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


              Best regards
              Philip  
               
               
              Philip Benjamin
              PhD.MSc.MA
              Evidentialist
              "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013
              Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
              ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
              "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012



               

              To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
              From: rclough@...
              Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
              Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

               
              Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
               
              How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
              How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
              How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
               
              IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
               
              One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.
              Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
              In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:
              Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
              Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
              Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
               
               
              ----- Receiving the following content -----
              Receiver: Everything List
              Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
              Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

              On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
              > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
              >
              > > 燞i
              socr...@... <javascript:>
              >
              > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
              > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
              >
              > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
              > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
              > could it really be otherwise?
              >
              > Craig
              ======

              In the name of reason and common sense:
              How could it really be otherwise?

              --
              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+
              unsubscribe@....
              To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
              Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
              For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


              ____________________________________________
              DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org



            • Robert Karl Stonjek
              ... From: Cass Silva To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:36 PM Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical
              Message 6 of 21 , Feb 3, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:36 PM
                Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                Cass


                From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                 
                Hi Philip Benjamin +
                 
                Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                 
                RKS:
                All of the waves you mention are part of the same spectrum the electromagnetic wave i.e. light, radio waves, UV light are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  The brain does give off some electromagnetic radiation that can be picked up by EEG and MEG devices.
                 
                Robert
              • Cass Silva
                Thanks for the clarification Robert, but I guess you see where my point is heading.  If our thoughts are electromagnetic in nature they can be both a particle
                Message 7 of 21 , Feb 3, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks for the clarification Robert, but I guess you see where my point is heading.  If our thoughts are electromagnetic in nature they can be both a particle and a wave.  Psychics and mediums tune into this and are able to read others thoughts, which means that although they are non-material they are still accessible to those who can tune into the same vibrational rate.  It also suggests that there is in fact an akashic record out there (Jung's collective unconscious) that is being accessed.

                  Cass


                  From: Robert Karl Stonjek <stonjek@...>
                  To: Mind and Brain <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Monday, 4 February 2013 1:22 PM
                  Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                   
                  
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 12:36 PM
                  Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                  We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                  Cass


                  From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                  To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                  Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                   
                  Hi Philip Benjamin +
                   
                  Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                  of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                   
                  RKS:
                  All of the waves you mention are part of the same spectrum the electromagnetic wave i.e. light, radio waves, UV light are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum.  The brain does give off some electromagnetic radiation that can be picked up by EEG and MEG devices.
                   
                  Robert


                • Dan Ghiocel
                  Of course! The only problem is that were not scientifically discovered, so the science can pretend they do not exist. The radioactivity was ignored too,
                  Message 8 of 21 , Feb 3, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Of course!
                    The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the science can pretend they do not exist.
                    The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots on a film in a drawer.
                    Dan G

                    On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                     
                    We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                    Cass


                    From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                    To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                    Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                     
                    Hi Philip Benjamin +
                     
                    Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                    of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                     
                     
                    ----- Receiving the following content -----
                    Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                    Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                     
                    [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


                    Best regards
                    Philip  
                     
                     
                    Philip Benjamin
                    PhD.MSc.MA
                    Evidentialist
                    "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013
                    Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                    ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                    "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012



                     

                    To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                    From: rclough@...
                    Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                    Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                     
                    Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                     
                    How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                    How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                    How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                     
                    IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                     
                    One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.
                    Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                    In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:
                    Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
                    Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                    Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                     
                     
                    ----- Receiving the following content -----
                    Receiver: Everything List
                    Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                    Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

                    On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
                    > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
                    >
                    > > 燞i
                    socr...@... <javascript:>
                    >
                    > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                    > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                    >
                    > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
                    > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
                    > could it really be otherwise?
                    >
                    > Craig
                    ======

                    In the name of reason and common sense:
                    How could it really be otherwise?

                    --
                    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+
                    unsubscribe@....
                    To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
                    Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                    For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


                    ____________________________________________
                    DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org




                  • Roger Clough
                    Hi Cass Silva Because thought is not in any particular place, since it is inextended in space. What would it wave ? Where would it do that ? The others are
                    Message 9 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi Cass Silva
                       
                      Because thought is not in any particular place, since it is inextended in space.
                      What would it wave ? Where would it do that ?
                       
                      The others are extended in space, so have particular locations at which they may form waves.
                       
                       
                      ----- Receiving the following content -----
                      Time: 2013-02-03, 20:36:34
                      Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                       

                      We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                      Cass


                      From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                      To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                      Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                       
                      Hi Philip Benjamin +
                       
                      Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                      of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                       
                      <snip>
                    • Roger Clough
                      Hi Philip Benjamin If Descartes is wrong, what should the definition of physical be ? What would the physical definition of a feeling be ? ... From: Philip
                      Message 10 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Hi Philip Benjamin
                         
                        If Descartes is wrong, what should the definition of physical be ?
                        What would the physical definition of a feeling be ?
                         
                        ----- Receiving the following content -----
                        Time: 2013-02-03, 11:15:06
                        Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                         

                        [Philip Benjamin] "Extension in space" is a very poor definition of physicality. Just because Descartes said it, does not mean it aught to be sufficient. "Feeling" by itself and "thought " by itself do not stand alone. None of that mean anything without its specific context for a specific moment. Feeling of what? Thought of what? Those are the real questions. Otherwise they by themselves are unreal and do not belong to science.


                        Best regards
                        Philip  
                         
                         
                        Philip Benjamin
                        PhD.MSc.MA

                        Evidentialist

                        "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

                        Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

                        ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

                         http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

                        "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




                         

                        To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                        From: rclough@...
                        Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 06:38:43 -0500
                        Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                         
                        Hi Philip Benjamin +
                         
                        Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                        of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                         
                         
                        ----- Receiving the following content -----
                        Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                        Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                         

                        [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


                        Best regards
                        Philip  
                         
                         
                        Philip Benjamin
                        PhD.MSc.MA

                        Evidentialist

                        "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

                        Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

                        ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

                         http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

                        "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




                         

                        To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                        From: rclough@...
                        Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                        Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                         
                        Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                         
                        How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                        How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                        How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                         
                        IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                         
                        One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.
                        Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                        In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:
                        Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
                        Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                        Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                         
                         
                        ----- Receiving the following content -----
                        Receiver: Everything List
                        Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                        Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

                        On Feb 1, 7:51�pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
                        > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
                        >
                        > > �Hi
                        socr...@... <javascript:>
                        >
                        > > Feynman was wrong. �Life isn't physics,
                        > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                        >
                        > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
                        > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
                        > could it really be otherwise?
                        >
                        > Craig
                        ======

                        In the name of reason and common sense:
                        How could it really be otherwise?

                        --
                        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+
                        unsubscribe@....
                        To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
                        Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


                        ____________________________________________
                        DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org



                      • Dr.d
                        ... .....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can t we have thought waves? We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently?
                        Message 11 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment


                          --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:

                          ".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we 
                          have thought waves?"

                          We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism but we have to first walk on 'solid' phenomenological and metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to our human species future, either 'live for the immanent today and tomorrow' or for the transcendental trans-generational 'day after tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been there, done that....  See: <http://angelldls.wordpress.com/>      Angell


                          >
                          > Of course!
                          > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                          > science can pretend they do not exist.
                          > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots
                          > on a film in a drawer.
                          > Dan G
                          > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                          > > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                          > > have thought waves?
                          > > Cass
                          > >
                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > *From:* Roger Clough
                          > > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                          > > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                          > > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                          > >
                          > > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                          > > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                          > > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                          > >
                          > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                          > > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                          > > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                          > >
                          > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                          > > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                          > >
                          > > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                          > > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                          > > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                          > > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                          > > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                          > > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                          > > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Best regards
                          > > Philip
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Philip Benjamin
                          > > PhD.MSc.MA
                          > > /Evidentialist/
                          > > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg 
                          > > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                          > > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                          > > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                          > > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                          > > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                          > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                          > > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                          > > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          > > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                          > > From: rclough@...
                          > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                          > > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                          > >
                          > > Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                          > > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                          > > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                          > > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                          > > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                          > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                          > >
                          > > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                          > > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                          > > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                          > > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                          > > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                          > > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                          > > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                          > > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                          > > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                          > > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                          > > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                          > > look for perception.
                          > >
                          > > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                          > > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                          > > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                          > > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                          > > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                          > > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                          > > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                          > > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                          > > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                          > > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                          > > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                          > > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                          > > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                          > > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                          > > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                          > > revealing in this regard:
                          > >
                          > > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                          > > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                          > > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                          > > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                          > > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                          > > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                          > > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                          > > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                          > > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                          > > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                          > > explained by figures and movements.
                          > >
                          > > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                          > > and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly
                          > > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                          > > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                          > > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                          > > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                          > > definition of perception as “the representation in the simple
                          > > of the compound, or of that which is outside” (/Principles of
                          > > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                          > > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in
                          > > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                          > > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                          > > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                          > > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If
                          > > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                          > > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                          > > indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                          > > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                          > > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                          > > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                          > > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                          > > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                          > > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                          > > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                          > > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                          > > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                          > > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                          > > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                          > > in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual
                          > > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                          > > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                          > > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                          > > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                          > > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                          > > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                          > > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                          > > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                          > > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                          > > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                          > >
                          > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                          > > *From:* socratus@...
                          > > *Receiver:* Everything List
                          > >
                          > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                          > > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                          > >
                          > > On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg
                          > > wrote:
                          > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                          > > wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > 燞i socr...@...
                          > >
                          > > >
                          > > > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                          > > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                          > > >
                          > > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                          > > then life,
                          > > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                          > > all physics. How
                          > > > could it really be otherwise?
                          > > >
                          > > > Craig
                          > > ======
                          > >
                          > > In the name of reason and common sense:
                          > > How could it really be otherwise?
                          > >
                          > > --
                          > > 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+unsubscribe@...
                          > >
                          > > To post to this group, send email to
                          > > everything-list@...
                          > >
                          > > Visit this group at
                          > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                          > > For more options, visit
                          > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > ____________________________________________
                          > > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                          > > www.dreammail.org
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • Philip Benjamin
                          Are there not thought waves called radio waves (EM)!! Don t they carry thoughts as information by amplitude or frequency modulations? Information get a
                          Message 12 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Are there not "thought waves" called radio waves (EM)!! Don't they carry "thoughts" as information by amplitude or frequency modulations? Information get a free ride on radio waves. So they behave AS IF thought waves. There is nothing mystical there.


                            Best regards
                            Philip  
                             
                             
                            Philip Benjamin
                            PhD.MSc.MA

                            Evidentialist

                            "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

                            Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

                            ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

                             http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

                            "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




                             

                            To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                            From: dan@...
                            Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:26:15 -0800
                            Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                             
                            Of course!
                            The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the science can pretend they do not exist.
                            The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots on a film in a drawer.
                            Dan G

                            On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                             
                            We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                            Cass


                            From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                            To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                            Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                             
                            Hi Philip Benjamin +
                             
                            Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                            of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                             
                             
                            ----- Receiving the following content -----
                            Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                            Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                             
                            [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


                            Best regards
                            Philip  
                             
                             
                            Philip Benjamin
                            PhD.MSc.MA
                            Evidentialist
                            "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013
                            Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                            ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                            "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012



                             

                            To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                            From: rclough@...
                            Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                            Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                             
                            Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                             
                            How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                            How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                            How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                             
                            IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                             
                            One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.
                            Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                            In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:
                            Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
                            Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                            Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                             
                             
                            ----- Receiving the following content -----
                            Receiver: Everything List
                            Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                            Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

                            On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
                            > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
                            >
                            > > 燞i
                            socr...@... <javascript:>
                            >
                            > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                            > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                            >
                            > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
                            > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
                            > could it really be otherwise?
                            >
                            > Craig
                            ======

                            In the name of reason and common sense:
                            How could it really be otherwise?

                            --
                            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+
                            unsubscribe@....
                            To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
                            Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                            For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


                            ____________________________________________
                            DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org





                          • Cass Silva
                            in the aether Cass ... space. ... they may form waves. ... in the aether Cass From: Roger Clough To: - MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                            Message 13 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              in the aether
                              Cass


                              From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                              To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 2:37 AM
                              Subject: Re: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                               
                              Hi Cass Silva
                               
                              Because thought is not in any particular place, since it is inextended in space.
                              What would it wave ? Where would it do that ?
                               
                              The others are extended in space, so have particular locations at which they may form waves.
                               
                               
                              ----- Receiving the following content -----
                              Time: 2013-02-03, 20:36:34
                              Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                               
                              We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                              Cass


                              From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                              To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                              Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                               
                              Hi Philip Benjamin +
                               
                              Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                              of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                               
                              <snip>


                            • Cass Silva
                              I would say depending on the energy of the thought, it would exist for as long as the energy surrounding it, remains undepleted.   Saying that, it seems that
                              Message 14 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                I would say depending on the energy of the thought, it would exist for as long as the energy surrounding it, remains undepleted.   Saying that, it seems that an evil person would continually feed his evil thoughts and would therefore these thoughts would prevail a lot longer in his energy field, which may be how the psychics pick up on them? And which may explain how memes come into universal consciousness.

                                If we for a moment say that thoughts are things and do exist on a plane of mental energy, it could be analagous to streams of consciousness popping in and out of the mental aether on which they are carried.  I think what I am trying to ask is What would the mental plane look like if there was such a thing.
                                Cass

                                From: Dr.d <Dr.d@...>
                                To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 3:15 AM
                                Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                 


                                --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:

                                ".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we 
                                have thought waves?"

                                We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism but we have to first walk on 'solid' phenomenological and metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to our human species future, either 'live for the immanent today and tomorrow' or for the transcendental trans-generational 'day after tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been there, done that....  See: <http://angelldls.wordpress.com/>      Angell


                                >
                                > Of course!
                                > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                                > science can pretend they do not exist.
                                > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots
                                > on a film in a drawer.
                                > Dan G
                                > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                > > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                > > have thought waves?
                                > > Cass
                                > >
                                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                > > *From:* Roger Clough
                                > > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                > > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                > > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                > >
                                > > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                > > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                > > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                > >
                                > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                > > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                                > > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                                > >
                                > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                > > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                > >
                                > > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                                > > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                                > > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                                > > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                                > > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                                > > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                                > > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Best regards
                                > > Philip
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Philip Benjamin
                                > > PhD.MSc.MA
                                > > /Evidentialist/
                                > > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg 
                                > > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                                > > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                                > > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                > > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                                > > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                > > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                                > > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                > > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                > > From: rclough@...
                                > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                > > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                > >
                                > > Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                                > > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                > > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                > > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                > > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                > >
                                > > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                                > > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                                > > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                                > > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                                > > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                                > > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                                > > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                                > > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                                > > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                                > > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                                > > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                                > > look for perception.
                                > >
                                > > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                                > > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                                > > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                                > > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                                > > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                                > > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                                > > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                                > > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                                > > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                                > > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                > > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                                > > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                                > > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                                > > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                                > > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                                > > revealing in this regard:
                                > >
                                > > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                                > > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                                > > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                                > > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                                > > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                                > > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                                > > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                                > > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                                > > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                                > > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                                > > explained by figures and movements.
                                > >
                                > > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                                > > and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly
                                > > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                                > > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                                > > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                                > > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                                > > definition of perception as “the representation in the simple
                                > > of the compound, or of that which is outside” (/Principles of
                                > > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                                > > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in
                                > > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                                > > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                                > > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                                > > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If
                                > > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                                > > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                                > > indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                                > > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                                > > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                                > > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                                > > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                                > > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                                > > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                                > > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                                > > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                                > > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                                > > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                > > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                                > > in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual
                                > > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                                > > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                                > > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                                > > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                                > > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                                > > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                                > > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                                > > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                                > > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                                > > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                > >
                                > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                > > *From:* socratus@...
                                > > *Receiver:* Everything List
                                > >
                                > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                > > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                                > >
                                > > On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg
                                > > wrote:
                                > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                                > > wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > > 燞i socr...@...
                                > >
                                > > >
                                > > > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                                > > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                > > >
                                > > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                                > > then life,
                                > > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                                > > all physics. How
                                > > > could it really be otherwise?
                                > > >
                                > > > Craig
                                > > ======
                                > >
                                > > In the name of reason and common sense:
                                > > How could it really be otherwise?
                                > >
                                > > --
                                > > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                > >
                                > > To post to this group, send email to
                                > > everything-list@...
                                > >
                                > > Visit this group at
                                > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                > > For more options, visit
                                > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ____________________________________________
                                > > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                                > > www.dreammail.org
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >


                              • Dan Ghiocel
                                Thought is communication , not energy. Dan G ... Thought is communication , not energy. Dan G On 2/4/2013 4:20 PM, Cass Silva wrote:   I would say depending
                                Message 15 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Thought is communication , not energy.
                                  Dan G
                                  On 2/4/2013 4:20 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                   
                                  I would say depending on the energy of the thought, it would exist for as long as the energy surrounding it, remains undepleted.   Saying that, it seems that an evil person would continually feed his evil thoughts and would therefore these thoughts would prevail a lot longer in his energy field, which may be how the psychics pick up on them? And which may explain how memes come into universal consciousness.

                                  If we for a moment say that thoughts are things and do exist on a plane of mental energy, it could be analagous to streams of consciousness popping in and out of the mental aether on which they are carried.  I think what I am trying to ask is What would the mental plane look like if there was such a thing.
                                  Cass

                                  From: Dr.d <Dr.d@...>
                                  To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                  Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 3:15 AM
                                  Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                   


                                  --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:

                                  ".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we 
                                  have thought waves?"

                                  We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism but we have to first walk on 'solid' phenomenological and metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to our human species future, either 'live for the immanent today and tomorrow' or for the transcendental trans-generational 'day after tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been there, done that....  See: <http://angelldls.wordpress.com/>      Angell


                                  >
                                  > Of course!
                                  > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                                  > science can pretend they do not exist.
                                  > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots
                                  > on a film in a drawer.
                                  > Dan G
                                  > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                  > > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                  > > have thought waves?
                                  > > Cass
                                  > >
                                  > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > > *From:* Roger Clough
                                  > > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                  > > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                  > > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                  > > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                  > > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                  > >
                                  > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                  > > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                                  > > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                                  > >
                                  > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                  > > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                  > >
                                  > > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                                  > > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                                  > > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                                  > > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                                  > > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                                  > > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                                  > > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Best regards
                                  > > Philip
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Philip Benjamin
                                  > > PhD.MSc.MA
                                  > > /Evidentialist/
                                  > > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg 
                                  > > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                                  > > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                                  > > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                  > > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                                  > > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                  > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                  > > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                                  > > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  > > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > From: rclough@...
                                  > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                  > > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                                  > > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                  > > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                  > > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                  > > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                  > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                  > >
                                  > > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                                  > > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                                  > > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                                  > > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                                  > > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                                  > > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                                  > > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                                  > > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                                  > > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                                  > > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                                  > > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                                  > > look for perception.
                                  > >
                                  > > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                                  > > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                                  > > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                                  > > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                                  > > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                                  > > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                                  > > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                                  > > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                                  > > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                                  > > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                  > > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                                  > > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                                  > > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                                  > > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                                  > > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                                  > > revealing in this regard:
                                  > >
                                  > > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                                  > > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                                  > > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                                  > > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                                  > > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                                  > > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                                  > > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                                  > > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                                  > > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                                  > > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                                  > > explained by figures and movements.
                                  > >
                                  > > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                                  > > and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly
                                  > > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                                  > > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                                  > > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                                  > > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                                  > > definition of perception as “the representation in the simple
                                  > > of the compound, or of that which is outside” (/Principles of
                                  > > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                                  > > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in
                                  > > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                                  > > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                                  > > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                                  > > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If
                                  > > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                                  > > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                                  > > indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                                  > > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                                  > > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                                  > > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                                  > > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                                  > > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                                  > > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                                  > > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                                  > > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                                  > > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                                  > > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                  > > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                                  > > in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual
                                  > > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                                  > > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                                  > > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                                  > > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                                  > > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                                  > > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                                  > > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                                  > > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                                  > > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                                  > > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                  > >
                                  > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                  > > *From:* socratus@...
                                  > > *Receiver:* Everything List
                                  > >
                                  > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                  > > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                                  > >
                                  > > On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg
                                  > > wrote:
                                  > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                                  > > wrote:
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > 燞i socr...@...
                                  > >
                                  > > >
                                  > > > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                                  > > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                  > > >
                                  > > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                                  > > then life,
                                  > > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                                  > > all physics. How
                                  > > > could it really be otherwise?
                                  > > >
                                  > > > Craig
                                  > > ======
                                  > >
                                  > > In the name of reason and common sense:
                                  > > How could it really be otherwise?
                                  > >
                                  > > --
                                  > > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                  > >
                                  > > To post to this group, send email to
                                  > > everything-list@...
                                  > >
                                  > > Visit this group at
                                  > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                  > > For more options, visit
                                  > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > ____________________________________________
                                  > > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                                  > > www.dreammail.org
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >



                                • Dr.d
                                  ... Are there not thought waves called radio waves (EM)!! Don t they carry thoughts as information by amplitude or frequency modulations? Information get
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Philip Benjamin wrote:
                                    "Are there not "thought waves" called radio waves (EM)!! Don't they carry "thoughts" as information by amplitude or frequency modulations? Information get a free ride on radio waves. So they behave AS IF thought waves. There is nothing mystical there."

                                    The wave is a convenient conveyance of the dark or light particulate matter that carries the information.   Angell
                                     
                                    >
                                    > Best regards
                                    > Philip
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Philip Benjamin
                                    > PhD.MSc.MAEvidentialist"Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8 Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire. http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                    > From: dan@...
                                    > Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:26:15 -0800
                                    > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Of course!
                                    >
                                    > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered,
                                    > so the science can pretend they do not exist.
                                    >
                                    > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered
                                    > some spots on a film in a drawer.
                                    >
                                    > Dan G
                                    >
                                    > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv
                                    > waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                                    > Cass
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > From:
                                    > Roger Clough
                                    >
                                    > To:
                                    > "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Sent:
                                    > Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                    >
                                    > Subject:
                                    > Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence
                                    > be physical ?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                    >
                                    > Meaning is typically feeling plus
                                    > thought, neither
                                    > of which is extended in space, hence
                                    > are nonphysical.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -----
                                    > Receiving the following content -----
                                    > From:
                                    > Philip
                                    > Benjamin
                                    > Receiver:
                                    > MindBrain
                                    > MindBrain
                                    > Time:
                                    > 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                    > Subject:
                                    > RE: [Mind and Brain] How can
                                    > intelligence be physical ?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Philip
                                    > Benjamin]. "Meaning
                                    > is not physical is an incomplete
                                    > and incorrect statement. The
                                    > correct question is Meaning of "what"
                                    > is not physical? Everything
                                    > substituted for what is
                                    > physical. That includes the
                                    > meaning of meaning. Because
                                    > that is again an incomplete
                                    > statement. The correct statement
                                    > is: meaning of meaning
                                    > of "what"? Here
                                    > again everything is physical for "what".
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Best regards
                                    >
                                    > Philip
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Philip
                                    > Benjamin
                                    >
                                    > PhD.MSc.MA
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Evidentialist
                                    > "Spiritual
                                    > Body or Physical
                                    > Spirit? Your Invisible
                                    > Doppelg nger". Sunbury
                                    > Press Jan
                                    > 2013
                                    >
                                    > Trade
                                    > paperback ISBN:
                                    > 978-1-62006-182-4
                                    > Mobipocket format
                                    > (Kindle) ISBN:
                                    > 978-1-62006-183-1
                                    > ePub
                                    > format (Nook) ISBN:
                                    > 978-1-62006-184-8 Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                    >
                                    > "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research
                                    > and Reviews Vol 4
                                    > issue 20, 2012
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > To:
                                    > everything-list@...;
                                    > mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    > From: rclough@...
                                    >
                                    > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46
                                    > -0500
                                    >
                                    > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can
                                    > intelligence be physical ?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Hi
                                    > socratus@...
                                    > and Craig, and all,
                                    >
                                    > How can
                                    > intelligence be
                                    > physical ? How can
                                    > meaning be physical ?
                                    > How can
                                    > thinking be physical ?
                                    > How can knowing be
                                    > physical ?
                                    > How can
                                    > life or consciousness or
                                    > free will be physical ?
                                    >
                                    > IMHO You
                                    > need to consider what is
                                    > really going on:
                                    >
                                    > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                    >
                                    > One
                                    > is obliged to admit
                                    > that perception
                                    > and what depends upon
                                    > it is inexplicable
                                    > on mechanical
                                    > principles, that
                                    > is, by figures and
                                    > motions. In imagining
                                    > that there is a
                                    > machine whose
                                    > construction would
                                    > enable it to think, to
                                    > sense, and to have
                                    > perception, one could
                                    > conceive it enlarged
                                    > while retaining the
                                    > same proportions, so
                                    > that one could enter
                                    > into it, just like
                                    > into a windmill.
                                    > Supposing this, one
                                    > should, when visiting
                                    > within it, find only
                                    > parts pushing one
                                    > another, and never
                                    > anything by which to
                                    > explain a perception.
                                    > Thus it is in the
                                    > simple substance, and
                                    > not in the composite
                                    > or in the machine,
                                    > that one must look for
                                    > perception.
                                    > Leibniz's
                                    > argument seems to be
                                    > this: the visitor of
                                    > the machine, upon
                                    > entering it, would
                                    > observe nothing but
                                    > the properties of the
                                    > parts, and the
                                    > relations they bear to
                                    > one another. But no
                                    > explanation of
                                    > perception, or
                                    > consciousness, can
                                    > possibly be deduced
                                    > from this
                                    > conglomerate. No
                                    > matter how complex the
                                    > inner workings of this
                                    > machine, nothing about
                                    > them reveals that what
                                    > is being observed are
                                    > the inner workings of
                                    > a conscious being.
                                    > Hence, materialism
                                    > must be false, for
                                    > there is no possible
                                    > way that the purely
                                    > mechanical principles
                                    > of materialism can
                                    > account for the
                                    > phenomena of
                                    > consciousness.
                                    >
                                    > In other
                                    > writings, Leibniz
                                    > suggests exactly what
                                    > characteristic it is
                                    > of perception and
                                    > consciousness that the
                                    > mechanical principles
                                    > of materialism cannot
                                    > account for. The
                                    > following passages,
                                    > the first from the New
                                    > System of Nature
                                    > (1695), the second
                                    > from the Reply to
                                    > Bayle (1702),
                                    > are revealing in this
                                    > regard:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Furthermore,
                                    > by means of the soul
                                    > or form, there is a
                                    > true unity which
                                    > corresponds to what is
                                    > called the I
                                    > in us; such a thing
                                    > could not occur in
                                    > artificial machines,
                                    > nor in the simple mass
                                    > of matter, however
                                    > organized it may be. But in
                                    > addition to the
                                    > general principles
                                    > which establish the
                                    > monads of which
                                    > compound things are
                                    > merely the results,
                                    > internal experience
                                    > refutes the Epicurean
                                    > [i.e. materialist]
                                    > doctrine. This
                                    > experience is the
                                    > consciousness which is
                                    > in us of this I
                                    > which apperceives
                                    > things which occur in
                                    > the body. This
                                    > perception cannot be
                                    > explained by figures
                                    > and movements.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Leibniz's
                                    > point is that whatever
                                    > is the subject of
                                    > perception and
                                    > consciousness must be
                                    > truly one, a single “I”
                                    > properly regarded as one
                                    > conscious being. An
                                    > aggregate of matter is
                                    > not truly one and so
                                    > cannot be regarded as a
                                    > single I,
                                    > capable of being the
                                    > subject of a unified
                                    > mental life. This
                                    > interpretation fits
                                    > nicely with Lebniz's
                                    > oft-repeated definition
                                    > of perception as “the
                                    > representation in the
                                    > simple of the compound,
                                    > or of that which is
                                    > outside” (Principles
                                    > of Nature and Grace,
                                    > sec.2 (1714)). More
                                    > explicitly, in a letter
                                    > to Antoine Arnauld of 9
                                    > October 1687, Leibniz
                                    > wrote that “in natural
                                    > perception and
                                    > sensation, it is enough
                                    > for what is divisible
                                    > and material and
                                    > dispersed into many
                                    > entities to be expressed
                                    > or represented in a
                                    > single indivisible
                                    > entity or in a substance
                                    > which is endowed with
                                    > genuine unity.” If
                                    > perception (and hence,
                                    > consciousness)
                                    > essentially involves a
                                    > representation of a
                                    > variety of content in a
                                    > simple, indivisible “I,”
                                    > then we may construct
                                    > Leibniz's argument
                                    > against materialism as
                                    > follows: Materialism
                                    > holds that matter can
                                    > explain (is identical
                                    > with, can give rise to)
                                    > perception. A perception
                                    > is a state whereby a
                                    > variety of content is
                                    > represented in a true
                                    > unity. Thus, whatever is
                                    > not a true unity cannot
                                    > give rise to perception.
                                    > Whatever is divisible is
                                    > not a true unity. Matter
                                    > is infinitely divisible.
                                    > Hence, matter cannot
                                    > form a true unity.
                                    > Hence, matter cannot
                                    > explain (be identical
                                    > with, give rise to)
                                    > perception. If matter
                                    > cannot explain (be
                                    > identical to, give rise
                                    > to) perception, then
                                    > materialism is false.
                                    > Hence, materialism is
                                    > false.
                                    >
                                    > Leibniz
                                    > rejected materialism on
                                    > the grounds that it
                                    > could not, in principle,
                                    > ever capture the “true
                                    > unity” of perceptual
                                    > consciousness, that
                                    > characteristic of the
                                    > self which can
                                    > simultaneously unify a
                                    > manifoldness of
                                    > perceptual content. If
                                    > this is Leibniz's
                                    > argument, it is of some
                                    > historical interest that
                                    > it bears striking
                                    > resemblances to
                                    > contemporary objections
                                    > to certain materialist
                                    > theories of mind. Many
                                    > contemporary
                                    > philosophers have
                                    > objected to some
                                    > versions of materialism
                                    > on the basis of thought
                                    > experiments like
                                    > Leibniz's: experiments
                                    > designed to show that
                                    > qualia and consciousness
                                    > are bound to elude
                                    > certain materialist
                                    > conceptions of the mind
                                    > (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel
                                    > 1974; McGinn 1989;
                                    > Jackson 1982).
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > -----
                                    > Receiving the
                                    > following content
                                    > -----
                                    > From:
                                    > socratus@...
                                    > Receiver:
                                    > Everything
                                    > List
                                    > Time:
                                    > 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                    > Subject:
                                    > Re: Science is a
                                    > religion by itself.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > On
                                    > Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig
                                    > Weinberg wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > On Friday,
                                    > February 1, 2013
                                    > 12:26:43 PM UTC-5,
                                    > rclough wrote:
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > > 燞i socr...@...
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > > Feynman
                                    > was wrong. 燣ife
                                    > isn't physics,
                                    >
                                    > > > it's
                                    > intelligence or
                                    > consciousness, free
                                    > will.
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > If we
                                    > understand that
                                    > physics is actually
                                    > experience, then
                                    > life,
                                    >
                                    > > intelligence,
                                    > consciousness, free
                                    > will, qualia, etc
                                    > are all physics. How
                                    >
                                    > > could it really
                                    > be otherwise?
                                    >
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > > Craig
                                    >
                                    > ======
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > In the name of
                                    > reason and common
                                    > sense:
                                    >
                                    > How could it really
                                    > be otherwise?
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > --
                                    >
                                    > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                    >
                                    > To post
                                    > to this group, send
                                    > email to everything-list@...
                                    >
                                    > Visit
                                    > this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                    >
                                    > For
                                    > more options, visit
                                    > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > ____________________________________________
                                    >
                                    > DreamMail - New experience in email software www.dreammail.org
                                    >
                                  • Dan Ghiocel
                                    It is obvious that there is a lot more communication in the world that we do not know about. The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Feb 4, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      It is obvious that there is a lot more communication in the world that we do not know about.
                                      The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support of the thought communications, it does not mean it does not exist.
                                      Dan G
                                      On 2/4/2013 8:15 AM, Dr.d wrote:

                                       



                                      --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:

                                      ".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we 
                                      have thought waves?"

                                      We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism but we have to first walk on 'solid' phenomenological and metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to our human species future, either 'live for the immanent today and tomorrow' or for the transcendental trans-generational 'day after tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been there, done that....  See: <http://angelldls.wordpress.com/>      Angell


                                      >
                                      > Of course!
                                      > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                                      > science can pretend they do not exist.
                                      > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots
                                      > on a film in a drawer.
                                      > Dan G
                                      > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                      > > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                      > > have thought waves?
                                      > > Cass
                                      > >
                                      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      > > *From:* Roger Clough
                                      > > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                      > > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                      > > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                      > >
                                      > > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                      > > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                      > > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                      > >
                                      > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                      > > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                                      > > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                                      > >
                                      > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                      > > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                      > >
                                      > > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                                      > > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                                      > > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                                      > > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                                      > > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                                      > > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                                      > > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Best regards
                                      > > Philip
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Philip Benjamin
                                      > > PhD.MSc.MA
                                      > > /Evidentialist/
                                      > > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg 
                                      > > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                                      > > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                                      > > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                      > > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                                      > > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                      > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                      > > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                                      > > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      > > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > From: rclough@...
                                      > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                      > > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                      > >
                                      > > Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                                      > > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                      > > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                      > > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                      > > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                      > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                      > >
                                      > > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                                      > > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                                      > > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                                      > > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                                      > > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                                      > > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                                      > > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                                      > > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                                      > > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                                      > > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                                      > > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                                      > > look for perception.
                                      > >
                                      > > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                                      > > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                                      > > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                                      > > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                                      > > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                                      > > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                                      > > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                                      > > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                                      > > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                                      > > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                      > > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                                      > > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                                      > > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                                      > > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                                      > > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                                      > > revealing in this regard:
                                      > >
                                      > > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                                      > > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                                      > > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                                      > > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                                      > > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                                      > > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                                      > > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                                      > > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                                      > > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                                      > > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                                      > > explained by figures and movements.
                                      > >
                                      > > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                                      > > and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly
                                      > > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                                      > > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                                      > > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                                      > > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                                      > > definition of perception as “the representation in the simple
                                      > > of the compound, or of that which is outside” (/Principles of
                                      > > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                                      > > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in
                                      > > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                                      > > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                                      > > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                                      > > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If
                                      > > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                                      > > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                                      > > indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                                      > > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                                      > > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                                      > > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                                      > > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                                      > > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                                      > > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                                      > > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                                      > > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                                      > > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                                      > > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                      > > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                                      > > in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual
                                      > > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                                      > > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                                      > > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                                      > > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                                      > > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                                      > > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                                      > > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                                      > > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                                      > > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                                      > > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                      > >
                                      > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                      > > *From:* socratus@...
                                      > > *Receiver:* Everything List
                                      > >
                                      > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                      > > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                                      > >
                                      > > On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg
                                      > > wrote:
                                      > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                                      > > wrote:
                                      > > >
                                      > > > > 燞i socr...@...
                                      > >
                                      > > >
                                      > > > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                                      > > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                      > > >
                                      > > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                                      > > then life,
                                      > > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                                      > > all physics. How
                                      > > > could it really be otherwise?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Craig
                                      > > ======
                                      > >
                                      > > In the name of reason and common sense:
                                      > > How could it really be otherwise?
                                      > >
                                      > > --
                                      > > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                      > >
                                      > > To post to this group, send email to
                                      > > everything-list@...
                                      > >
                                      > > Visit this group at
                                      > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                      > > For more options, visit
                                      > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > ____________________________________________
                                      > > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                                      > > www.dreammail.org
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >

                                    • Roger Clough
                                      Hi Philip Benjamin I can t receive radio waves. ... From: Philip Benjamin Receiver: MindBrain MindBrain Time: 2013-02-04, 16:20:35 Subject: RE: [Mind and
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Feb 5, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Hi Philip Benjamin
                                         
                                        I can't receive radio waves.
                                         
                                         
                                        ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                        Time: 2013-02-04, 16:20:35
                                        Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                         

                                        Are there not "thought waves" called radio waves (EM)!! Don't they carry "thoughts" as information by amplitude or frequency modulations? Information get a free ride on radio waves. So they behave AS IF thought waves. There is nothing mystical there.


                                        Best regards
                                        Philip  
                                         
                                         
                                        Philip Benjamin
                                        PhD.MSc.MA

                                        Evidentialist

                                        "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013

                                        Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1

                                        ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.

                                         http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

                                        "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




                                         

                                        To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                        From: dan@...
                                        Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:26:15 -0800
                                        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                         
                                        Of course!
                                        The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the science can pretend they do not exist.
                                        The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots on a film in a drawer.
                                        Dan G

                                        On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                         
                                        We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we have thought waves?
                                        Cass


                                        From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                                        To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                        Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                         
                                        Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                         
                                        Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                        of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                         
                                         
                                        ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                        Time: 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                        Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                         
                                        [Philip Benjamin]. "Meaning is not physical is an incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is Meaning of "what" is not physical? Everything substituted for what is physical. That includes the meaning of meaning. Because that is again an incomplete statement. The correct statement is: meaning of meaning of "what"? Here again everything is physical for "what".  


                                        Best regards
                                        Philip  
                                         
                                         
                                        Philip Benjamin
                                        PhD.MSc.MA
                                        Evidentialist
                                        "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg nger". Sunbury Press Jan 2013
                                        Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4  Mobipocket format (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                        ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8  Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                        "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012



                                         

                                        To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                        From: rclough@...
                                        Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                        Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?

                                         
                                        Hi socratus@... and Craig, and all,
                                         
                                        How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                        How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                        How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                         
                                        IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                         
                                        One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must look for perception.
                                        Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                        In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The following passages, the first from the New System of Nature (1695), the second from the Reply to Bayle (1702), are revealing in this regard:
                                        Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true unity which corresponds to what is called the I in us; such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be. But in addition to the general principles which establish the monads of which compound things are merely the results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e. materialist] doctrine. This experience is the consciousness which is in us of this I which apperceives things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be explained by figures and movements.
                                        Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly regarded as one conscious being. An aggregate of matter is not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single I, capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated definition of perception as “the representation in the simple of the compound, or of that which is outside” (Principles of Nature and Grace, sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a representation of a variety of content in a simple, indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception. A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence, matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                        Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not, in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                         
                                         
                                        ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                        Receiver: Everything List
                                        Time: 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                        Subject: Re: Science is a religion by itself.

                                        On Feb 1, 7:51�pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@...> wrote:
                                        > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough wrote:
                                        >
                                        > > �Hi
                                        socr...@... <javascript:>
                                        >
                                        > > Feynman was wrong. �Life isn't physics,
                                        > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                        >
                                        > If we understand that physics is actually experience, then life,
                                        > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are all physics. How
                                        > could it really be otherwise?
                                        >
                                        > Craig
                                        ======

                                        In the name of reason and common sense:
                                        How could it really be otherwise?

                                        --
                                        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+
                                        unsubscribe@....
                                        To post to this group, send email to everything-list@....
                                        Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                        For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


                                        ____________________________________________
                                        DreamMail - New experience in email software  www.dreammail.org





                                      • Dr.d
                                        ... The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support of the thought communications, it does not mean it does not exist. Can you provide at
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Feb 5, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel wrote:
                                          "The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support of the thought communications, it does not mean it does not exist."

                                          Can you provide at least a clue? Otherwise it has the same credibility as proclaiming 'winged angels exist in heaven'.  Angell

                                          > It is obvious that there is a lot more communication in the world that
                                          > we do not know about.
                                          > The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support of
                                          > the thought communications, it does not mean it does not exist.
                                          > Dan G
                                          > On 2/4/2013 8:15 AM, Dr.d wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:
                                          > >
                                          > > ".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                          > > have thought waves?"
                                          > >
                                          > > We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can
                                          > > redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological
                                          > > attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances
                                          > > attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just
                                          > > like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries
                                          > > information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to
                                          > > regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism
                                          > > but we have to *first *walk on 'solid' phenomenological and
                                          > > metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic
                                          > > inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of
                                          > > staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling
                                          > > reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there
                                          > > are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal
                                          > > adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to
                                          > > our human species future, either 'live for the *immanent* today and
                                          > > tomorrow' or for the *transcendental *trans-generational 'day after
                                          > > tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities
                                          > > and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been
                                          > > there, done that.... See: Angell
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Of course!
                                          > > > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                                          > > > science can pretend they do not exist.
                                          > > > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some
                                          > > spots
                                          > > > on a film in a drawer.
                                          > > > Dan G
                                          > > > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                          > > > > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                          > > > > have thought waves?
                                          > > > > Cass
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          > > > > *From:* Roger Clough
                                          > > > > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                          > > > > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                          > > > > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                          > > > > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                          > > > > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                          > > > > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                                          > > > > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                          > > > > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                                          > > > > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                                          > > > > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                                          > > > > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                                          > > > > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                                          > > > > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                                          > > > > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Best regards
                                          > > > > Philip
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Philip Benjamin
                                          > > > > PhD.MSc.MA
                                          > > > > /Evidentialist/
                                          > > > > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible DoppelgãEUREUR
                                          > > > > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                                          > > > > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                                          > > > > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                          > > > > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                                          > > > > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                          > > > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                          > > > > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                                          > > > > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          > > > > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > > From: rclough@
                                          > > > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                          > > > > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Hi socratus@ and Craig, and all,
                                          > > > > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                          > > > > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                          > > > > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                          > > > > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                          > > > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                                          > > > > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                                          > > > > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                                          > > > > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                                          > > > > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                                          > > > > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                                          > > > > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                                          > > > > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                                          > > > > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                                          > > > > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                                          > > > > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                                          > > > > look for perception.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                                          > > > > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                                          > > > > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                                          > > > > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                                          > > > > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                                          > > > > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                                          > > > > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                                          > > > > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                                          > > > > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                                          > > > > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                          > > > > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                                          > > > > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                                          > > > > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                                          > > > > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                                          > > > > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                                          > > > > revealing in this regard:
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                                          > > > > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                                          > > > > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                                          > > > > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                                          > > > > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                                          > > > > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                                          > > > > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                                          > > > > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                                          > > > > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                                          > > > > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                                          > > > > explained by figures and movements.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                                          > > > > and consciousness must be truly one, a single âEURoeIâEUR? properly
                                          > > > > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                                          > > > > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                                          > > > > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                                          > > > > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                                          > > > > definition of perception as âEURoethe representation in the simple
                                          > > > > of the compound, or of that which is outsideâEUR? (/Principles of
                                          > > > > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                                          > > > > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that âEURoein
                                          > > > > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                                          > > > > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                                          > > > > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                                          > > > > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.âEUR? If
                                          > > > > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                                          > > > > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                                          > > > > indivisible âEURoeI,âEUR? then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                                          > > > > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                                          > > > > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                                          > > > > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                                          > > > > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                                          > > > > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                                          > > > > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                                          > > > > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                                          > > > > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                                          > > > > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                                          > > > > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                          > > > > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                                          > > > > in principle, ever capture the âEURoetrue unityâEUR? of perceptual
                                          > > > > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                                          > > > > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                                          > > > > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                                          > > > > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                                          > > > > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                                          > > > > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                                          > > > > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                                          > > > > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                                          > > > > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                                          > > > > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                          > > > > *From:* socratus@
                                          > > > > *Receiver:* Everything List
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                          > > > > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > On Feb 1, 7:51ç^OEm, Craig Weinberg
                                          > > > > wrote:
                                          > > > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                                          > > > > wrote:
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > ç++z(i socr...@
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > Feynman was wrong. ç++£ife isn't physics,
                                          > > > > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                                          > > > > then life,
                                          > > > > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                                          > > > > all physics. How
                                          > > > > > could it really be otherwise?
                                          > > > > >
                                          > > > > > Craig
                                          > > > > ======
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > In the name of reason and common sense:
                                          > > > > How could it really be otherwise?
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > --
                                          > > > > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > To post to this group, send email to
                                          > > > > everything-list@...
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Visit this group at
                                          > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                          > > > > For more options, visit
                                          > > > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > ____________________________________________
                                          > > > > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                                          > > > > www.dreammail.org
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                        • Dr.d
                                          ... If we for a moment say that thoughts are things and do exist on a plane of mental energy, it could be analagous to streams of consciousness popping in and
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Feb 5, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Cass Silva wrote:
                                            "If we for a moment say that thoughts are things and do exist on a plane of mental energy, it could be analagous to streams of consciousness popping in and out of the mental aether on which they are carried.  I think what I am trying to ask is What would the mental plane look like if there was such a thing."

                                            There is a more credible poem explaining 'streams of consciousness' than the one you may be thinking about, mental planes like particle-carrying energy fields? The first one is based on a variety of probable adaptive prefab scenarios responses to a particular environmental stimulus as they exist in pre-motor neocortex attractor phase space. The subsequent presence of that stimulus triggers triggers a replay of those probable responses (streams of consciousness) until we consciously freely 'consent' to one of the available alternatives depending on a set of individualized ongoing priorities. I explain it at: <http://www.delasierra-sheffer.net/ID5-Exercise-Physiology-org/index.htm>  but don't remember the particular chapter on brain dynamics.
                                            Angell 
                                            >
                                            > I would say depending on the energy of the thought, it would exist for as long as the energy surrounding it, remains undepleted.   Saying that, it seems that an evil person would continually feed his evil thoughts and would therefore these thoughts would prevail a lot longer in his energy field, which may be how the psychics pick up on them? And which may explain how memes come into universal consciousness.
                                            >
                                            > If we for a moment say that thoughts are things and do exist on a plane of mental energy, it could be analagous to streams of consciousness popping in and out of the mental aether on which they are carried.  I think what I am trying to ask is What would the mental plane look like if there was such a thing.
                                            > Cass
                                            >
                                            > >________________________________
                                            > > From: Dr.d
                                            > >To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                            > >Sent: Tuesday, 5 February 2013 3:15 AM
                                            > >Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > > 
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >--- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we 
                                            > >have thought waves?"
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism but we have to first walk on 'solid' phenomenological and metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to our human species
                                            > future, either 'live for the immanent today and tomorrow' or for the transcendental trans-generational 'day after tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been there, done that....  See:      Angell
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >>
                                            > >> Of course!
                                            > >> The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                                            > >> science can pretend they do not exist.
                                            > >> The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some spots
                                            > >> on a film in a drawer.
                                            > >> Dan G
                                            > >> On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                            > >> > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                            > >> > have thought waves?
                                            > >> > Cass
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            > >> > *From:* Roger Clough
                                            > >> > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                            > >> > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                            > >> > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                            > >> > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                            > >> > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                            > >> > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                                            > >> > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                            > >> > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                                            > >> > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                                            > >> > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                                            > >> > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                                            > >> > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                                            > >> > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                                            > >> > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Best regards
                                            > >> > Philip
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Philip Benjamin
                                            > >> > PhD.MSc.MA
                                            > >> > /Evidentialist/
                                            > >> > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg 
                                            > >> > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                                            > >> > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                                            > >> > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                            > >> > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                                            > >> > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                            > >> > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                            > >> > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                                            > >> > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            > >> > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                            > >> > From: rclough@
                                            > >> > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                            > >> > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Hi socratus@ and Craig, and all,
                                            > >> > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                            > >> > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                            > >> > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                            > >> > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                            > >> > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                                            > >> > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                                            > >> > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                                            > >> > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                                            > >> > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                                            > >> > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                                            > >> > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                                            > >> > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                                            > >> > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                                            > >> > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                                            > >> > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                                            > >> > look for perception.
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                                            > >> > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                                            > >> > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                                            > >> > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                                            > >> > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                                            > >> > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                                            > >> > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                                            > >> > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                                            > >> > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                                            > >> > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                            > >> > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                                            > >> > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                                            > >> > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                                            > >> > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                                            > >> > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                                            > >> > revealing in this regard:
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                                            > >> > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                                            > >> > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                                            > >> > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                                            > >> > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                                            > >> > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                                            > >> > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                                            > >> > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                                            > >> > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                                            > >> > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                                            > >> > explained by figures and movements.
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                                            > >> > and consciousness must be truly one, a single “I” properly
                                            > >> > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                                            > >> > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                                            > >> > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                                            > >> > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                                            > >> > definition of perception as “the representation in the simple
                                            > >> > of the compound, or of that which is outside” (/Principles of
                                            > >> > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                                            > >> > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that “in
                                            > >> > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                                            > >> > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                                            > >> > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                                            > >> > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.” If
                                            > >> > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                                            > >> > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                                            > >> > indivisible “I,” then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                                            > >> > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                                            > >> > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                                            > >> > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                                            > >> > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                                            > >> > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                                            > >> > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                                            > >> > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                                            > >> > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                                            > >> > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                                            > >> > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                            > >> > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                                            > >> > in principle, ever capture the “true unity” of perceptual
                                            > >> > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                                            > >> > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                                            > >> > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                                            > >> > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                                            > >> > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                                            > >> > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                                            > >> > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                                            > >> > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                                            > >> > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                                            > >> > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                            > >> > *From:* socratus@
                                            > >> > *Receiver:* Everything List
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                            > >> > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > On Feb 1, 7:51爌m, Craig Weinberg
                                            > >> > wrote:
                                            > >> > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                                            > >> > wrote:
                                            > >> > >
                                            > >> > > > 燞i socr...@
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > >
                                            > >> > > > Feynman was wrong. 燣ife isn't physics,
                                            > >> > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                            > >> > >
                                            > >> > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                                            > >> > then life,
                                            > >> > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                                            > >> > all physics. How
                                            > >> > > could it really be otherwise?
                                            > >> > >
                                            > >> > > Craig
                                            > >> > ======
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > In the name of reason and common sense:
                                            > >> > How could it really be otherwise?
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > --
                                            > >> > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > To post to this group, send email to
                                            > >> > everything-list@...
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > Visit this group at
                                            > >> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                            > >> > For more options, visit
                                            > >> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> > ____________________________________________
                                            > >> > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                                            > >> > www.dreammail.org
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >> >
                                            > >>
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            > >
                                            >
                                          • Dan Ghiocel
                                            A clue to what? Credibility for what? There is empirical evidence, the science is supposed to pick up the baton and explain the phenomena scientifically. So
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Feb 5, 2013
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              A clue to what?
                                              Credibility for what?
                                              There is empirical evidence, the science is supposed to pick up the baton and explain  the phenomena scientifically.
                                              So far the science is unable to explain the action at distance, be it gravity, be it entanglement.
                                              It is still far from figuring out the thought communication .
                                              What about the heaven and the winged angels? Where did you find out about that? Did you see any?
                                              Dan G
                                              On 2/5/2013 8:12 AM, Dr.d wrote:
                                               


                                              --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel wrote:
                                              "The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support of the thought communications, it does not mean it does not exist."


                                              Can you provide at least a clue? Otherwise it has the same credibility as proclaiming 'winged angels exist in heaven'.  Angell

                                              > It is obvious that there is a lot more communication in the world that
                                              > we do not know about.
                                              > The fact that the science was not able yet to discover the support of
                                              > the thought communications, it does not mean it does not exist.
                                              > Dan G
                                              > On 2/4/2013 8:15 AM, Dr.d wrote:
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Dan Ghiocel quotes Cass Silva:
                                              > >
                                              > > ".....We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                              > > have thought waves?"
                                              > >
                                              > > We may have thought waves but...do they exist independently? Can
                                              > > redness exist without the apple? Material particles' phenomenological
                                              > > attributions depends on the observer and the relevant circumstances
                                              > > attending the measurement or observation. Waves are carriers, just
                                              > > like the energy manifestation featured in the measurement carries
                                              > > information about the particulate matter substrate. I am not trying to
                                              > > regress back to the platitudes of the old Greek physical materialism
                                              > > but we have to *first *walk on 'solid' phenomenological and
                                              > > metaphysical logic grounds before looking up to the stars for poetic
                                              > > inspiration. We must free ourselves from the quotidian prison of
                                              > > staying alive charged to our emotional self before we start modeling
                                              > > reality with our metaphysical poems. To our chagrin, we discover there
                                              > > are two of us consciously present when freely choosing the optimal
                                              > > adaptive response to contingencies. This is IMHO the real challenge to
                                              > > our human species future, either 'live for the *immanent* today and
                                              > > tomorrow' or for the *transcendental *trans-generational 'day after
                                              > > tomorrow'. We actually can reconcile these two coexistent realities
                                              > > and avoid the potential harrowing effects of 'self deception'. Been
                                              > > there, done that.... See: Angell
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > > >
                                              > > > Of course!
                                              > > > The only problem is that were not "scientifically" discovered, so the
                                              > > > science can pretend they do not exist.
                                              > > > The radioactivity was ignored too, until Becquerel discovered some
                                              > > spots
                                              > > > on a film in a drawer.
                                              > > > Dan G
                                              > > > On 2/3/2013 5:36 PM, Cass Silva wrote:
                                              > > > > We have micro waves, electromagnetic waves, uv waves, why can't we
                                              > > > > have thought waves?
                                              > > > > Cass
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              > > > > *From:* Roger Clough
                                              > > > > *To:* "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com"
                                              > > > > *Sent:* Sunday, 3 February 2013 10:38 PM
                                              > > > > *Subject:* Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Hi Philip Benjamin +
                                              > > > > Meaning is typically feeling plus thought, neither
                                              > > > > of which is extended in space, hence are nonphysical.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                              > > > > *From:* Philip Benjamin
                                              > > > > *Receiver:* MindBrain MindBrain
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 11:05:29
                                              > > > > *Subject:* RE: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > [*Philip Benjamin*]. "/Meaning/ is not physical is an
                                              > > > > incomplete and incorrect statement. The correct question is
                                              > > > > Meaning of "/*what"* /is not physical? Everything substituted
                                              > > > > for */what /*is physical. That includes the meaning of
                                              > > > > */meaning. /*Because that is again an incomplete statement.
                                              > > > > The correct statement is: /meaning/ of */meaning of "what"?
                                              > > > > /*Here again everything is physical for "*what"*. *//*
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Best regards
                                              > > > > Philip
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Philip Benjamin
                                              > > > > PhD.MSc.MA
                                              > > > > /Evidentialist/
                                              > > > > "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible DoppelgãEUREUR
                                              > > > > nger". *Sunbury Press *Jan 2013
                                              > > > > Trade paperback ISBN: 978-1-62006-182-4 Mobipocket format
                                              > > > > (Kindle) ISBN: 978-1-62006-183-1
                                              > > > > ePub format (Nook) ISBN: 978-1-62006-184-8
                                              > > > > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire.
                                              > > > > http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                              > > > > "/Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry"/, International Journal of
                                              > > > > Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              > > > > To: everything-list@...; mindbrain@yahoogroups.com
                                              > > > > From: rclough@
                                              > > > > Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:02:46 -0500
                                              > > > > Subject: [Mind and Brain] How can intelligence be physical ?
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Hi socratus@ and Craig, and all,
                                              > > > > How can intelligence be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
                                              > > > > How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
                                              > > > > How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?
                                              > > > > IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:
                                              > > > > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > One is obliged to admit that /perception/ and what depends
                                              > > > > upon it is /inexplicable on mechanical principles/, that
                                              > > > > is, by figures and motions. In imagining that there is a
                                              > > > > machine whose construction would enable it to think, to
                                              > > > > sense, and to have perception, one could conceive it
                                              > > > > enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one
                                              > > > > could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
                                              > > > > this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts
                                              > > > > pushing one another, and never anything by which to
                                              > > > > explain a perception. Thus it is in the simple substance,
                                              > > > > and not in the composite or in the machine, that one must
                                              > > > > look for perception.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the
                                              > > > > machine, upon entering it, would observe nothing but the
                                              > > > > properties of the parts, and the relations they bear to one
                                              > > > > another. But no explanation of perception, or consciousness,
                                              > > > > can possibly be deduced from this conglomerate. No matter how
                                              > > > > complex the inner workings of this machine, nothing about them
                                              > > > > reveals that what is being observed are the inner workings of
                                              > > > > a conscious being. Hence, materialism must be false, for there
                                              > > > > is no possible way that the purely mechanical principles of
                                              > > > > materialism can account for the phenomena of consciousness.
                                              > > > > In other writings, Leibniz suggests exactly what
                                              > > > > characteristic it is of perception and consciousness that the
                                              > > > > mechanical principles of materialism cannot account for. The
                                              > > > > following passages, the first from the /New System of Nature/
                                              > > > > (1695), the second from the /Reply to Bayle/ (1702), are
                                              > > > > revealing in this regard:
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Furthermore, by means of the soul or form, there is a true
                                              > > > > unity which corresponds to what is called the /I/ in us;
                                              > > > > such a thing could not occur in artificial machines, nor
                                              > > > > in the simple mass of matter, however organized it may be.
                                              > > > > But in addition to the general principles which establish
                                              > > > > the monads of which compound things are merely the
                                              > > > > results, internal experience refutes the Epicurean [i.e.
                                              > > > > materialist] doctrine. This experience is the
                                              > > > > consciousness which is in us of this /I/ which apperceives
                                              > > > > things which occur in the body. This perception cannot be
                                              > > > > explained by figures and movements.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Leibniz's point is that whatever is the subject of perception
                                              > > > > and consciousness must be truly one, a single âEURoeIâEUR? properly
                                              > > > > regarded as /one/ conscious being. An aggregate of matter is
                                              > > > > not truly one and so cannot be regarded as a single /I/,
                                              > > > > capable of being the subject of a unified mental life. This
                                              > > > > interpretation fits nicely with Lebniz's oft-repeated
                                              > > > > definition of perception as âEURoethe representation in the simple
                                              > > > > of the compound, or of that which is outsideâEUR? (/Principles of
                                              > > > > Nature and Grace,/ sec.2 (1714)). More explicitly, in a letter
                                              > > > > to Antoine Arnauld of 9 October 1687, Leibniz wrote that âEURoein
                                              > > > > natural perception and sensation, it is enough for what is
                                              > > > > divisible and material and dispersed into many entities to be
                                              > > > > expressed or represented in a single indivisible entity or in
                                              > > > > a substance which is endowed with genuine unity.âEUR? If
                                              > > > > perception (and hence, consciousness) essentially involves a
                                              > > > > representation of a variety of content in a simple,
                                              > > > > indivisible âEURoeI,âEUR? then we may construct Leibniz's argument
                                              > > > > against materialism as follows: Materialism holds that matter
                                              > > > > can explain (is identical with, can give rise to) perception.
                                              > > > > A perception is a state whereby a variety of content is
                                              > > > > represented in a true unity. Thus, whatever is not a true
                                              > > > > unity cannot give rise to perception. Whatever is divisible is
                                              > > > > not a true unity. Matter is infinitely divisible. Hence,
                                              > > > > matter cannot form a true unity. Hence, matter cannot explain
                                              > > > > (be identical with, give rise to) perception. If matter cannot
                                              > > > > explain (be identical to, give rise to) perception, then
                                              > > > > materialism is false. Hence, materialism is false.
                                              > > > > Leibniz rejected materialism on the grounds that it could not,
                                              > > > > in principle, ever capture the âEURoetrue unityâEUR? of perceptual
                                              > > > > consciousness, that characteristic of the self which can
                                              > > > > simultaneously unify a manifoldness of perceptual content. If
                                              > > > > this is Leibniz's argument, it is of some historical interest
                                              > > > > that it bears striking resemblances to contemporary objections
                                              > > > > to certain materialist theories of mind. Many contemporary
                                              > > > > philosophers have objected to some versions of materialism on
                                              > > > > the basis of thought experiments like Leibniz's: experiments
                                              > > > > designed to show that qualia and consciousness are bound to
                                              > > > > elude certain materialist conceptions of the mind (cf. Searle
                                              > > > > 1980; Nagel 1974; McGinn 1989; Jackson 1982).
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                              > > > > *From:* socratus@
                                              > > > > *Receiver:* Everything List
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > *Time:* 2013-02-02, 01:39:35
                                              > > > > *Subject:* Re: Science is a religion by itself.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > On Feb 1, 7:51ç^OEm, Craig Weinberg
                                              > > > > wrote:
                                              > > > > > On Friday, February 1, 2013 12:26:43 PM UTC-5, rclough
                                              > > > > wrote:
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > ç++z(i socr...@
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > > Feynman was wrong. ç++£ife isn't physics,
                                              > > > > > > it's intelligence or consciousness, free will.
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > If we understand that physics is actually experience,
                                              > > > > then life,
                                              > > > > > intelligence, consciousness, free will, qualia, etc are
                                              > > > > all physics. How
                                              > > > > > could it really be otherwise?
                                              > > > > >
                                              > > > > > Craig
                                              > > > > ======
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > In the name of reason and common sense:
                                              > > > > How could it really be otherwise?
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > --
                                              > > > > 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+unsubscribe@...
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > To post to this group, send email to
                                              > > > > everything-list@...
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > Visit this group at
                                              > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
                                              > > > > For more options, visit
                                              > > > > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > > ____________________________________________
                                              > > > > /*DreamMail*/ - New experience in email software
                                              > > > > www.dreammail.org
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > > >
                                              > > >
                                              > >
                                              >

                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.