Once again, Matt Rouge offers some fascinating philosophical insights, this time focusing on Leibniz's theory of monads. Take it away, Matt ...
======
Thank you, Michael! Always an honor and a pleasure.
On this blog, Michael frequently talks about the theory that information is in some way fundamental to reality, and I subscribe to this view as well. But the word “information” has a connotation problem. In a recent comment on this blog, our friend Bruce Siegel said,
If it's a choice between over-using one or the other, I'll choose "consciousness" because it refers to a *living* thing rather than a dead one.
Bottom line: I think life/consciousness/love is central to both the universe and my own being, not some abstract, bloodless, nebulous, concept like "information." […]
For me, the undue focus on "information" is closely related to an obsession with matter. And that's because in its normal use "information" is always associated with some form of physical substrate.
Bruce has done me the favor of outlining rather completely the problems with using this word to mean what we want it to mean in this case. But what if someone had solved this issue way back in 1714? And what if he had, likely without understanding he had done so, elucidated the theory of information as fundamental to reality in a concise, intelligible, and illuminating way?
I think that that, with his La Monadologie (The Monadology), mathematical and philosophical genius Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz did exactly that. Here is the complete text. It’s not very long, so I’m going to go over much of it right here. For the sake of brevity, I won’t quote and comment on everything, but I invite you to read the entire text as I go through it.
Leibniz
Now, before we begin, I will ask you to mentally participate in this way: Imagine that when Leibniz says “Monad,” he is actually saying “unit of information.” Further, please accept for the moment my definition of “information.” It is not limited to data contained in a medium like paper, silicon, or neurons. Rather, it is any fact, thought, or qualia. Ultimately, it is any actual or potential object of awareness. Perhaps you will agree that, if you read the text with these concepts in mind, The Monadology leads to some stunning insights.
Without further ado…
1. The Monad […] is nothing but a simple substance, which enters into compounds. By ‘simple’ is meant ‘without parts’.
2. And there must be simple substances, since there are compounds; for a compound is nothing but a collection or aggregatum of simple things.
We can see the Monad as a unit of information and compounds as relationships with other information. Information ultimately does not have parts in the physical sense, though it may be divisible and compoundable in our minds.
3. Now where there are no parts, there can be neither extension nor form nor divisibility. These Monads are the real atoms of nature and, in a word, the elements of things.
Ah, right away we get some good stuff. Monads have no geometric characteristics or form whatsoever, which is true of information. In other words, information is non-local. Further, it is nevertheless fundamental to what we call “physical reality.”
4. No dissolution of these elements need be feared, and there is no conceivable way in which a simple substance can be destroyed by natural means.
Information is indestructible, in other words.
7. Further, there is no way of explaining how a Monad can be altered in quality or internally changed by any other created thing; since it is impossible to change the place of anything in it or to conceive in it any internal motion which could be produced, directed, increased or diminished therein, although all this is possible in the case of compounds, in which there are changes among the parts. The Monads have no windows, through which anything could come in or go out. […]
This matches pretty well how we think of information: we cannot alter information itself, but we can alter how we form “compounds”/relationships with it in our minds.
14. The passing condition [i.e., changes in the Monad], which involves and represents a multiplicity in the unit or in the simple substance, is nothing but what is called Perception, which is to be distinguished from Apperception or Consciousness, as will afterwards appear. […]
There is a lot that comes before this, but in essence Leibniz argues that monads must be different from one another; otherwise, they would not exist as units. Further, they must be subject to change. So what is the content of the monad? Perception! And this makes sense with respect to the definition of “information” I earlier described. The unit of information is essentially the object of awareness, however the mind at that moment chooses to relate to it (e.g., looking at the face instead of the entire person, looking at the nose instead of the face, and so on).
Now we are getting into pan-consciousness and, since monads are non-local, the holographic universe that friend and frequent commenter Art espouses. This theme will only be spread on thicker as we proceed.
Manuscript page of The Monadology
17. Moreover, it must be confessed that perception and that which depends upon it are inexplicable on mechanical grounds, that is to say, by means of figures and motions. And supposing there were a machine, so constructed as to think, feel, and have perception, it might be conceived as increased in size, while keeping the same proportions, so that one might go into it as into a mill. That being so, we should, on examining its interior, find only parts which work one upon another, and never anything by which to explain a perception. Thus it is in a simple substance, and not in a compound or in a machine, that perception must be sought for. Further, nothing but this (namely, perceptions and their changes) can be found in a simple substance. It is also in this alone that all the internal activities of simple substances can consist.
Here is a brilliant insight by Leibniz that also gets into the problem of qualia. If we were to increase the size of the brain, we would see neurons and so on, but we would not see perception itself. Materialists would say that perception lies in the relationships between neurons, but what if perceptions lie within information itself? That is, the perception is its own content. This is a kind of Copernican Revolution in reverse, in which information does not revolve around the mind, but the mind revolves around the information; or rather, the mind is a relationship among infinite non-local modes of experiencing awareness.
18. All simple substances or created Monads might be called Entelechies, for they have in them a certain perfection (ἔχουσι τὸἐντελές); they have a certain self-sufficiency (αὐτάρκεια) which makes them the sources of their internal activities and, so to speak, incorporeal automata.
Here is perhaps the word that can replace the bloodless word “information”: entelechies. Also, Funkentelechy vs. the Placebo Syndrome. George Clinton knows his Leibniz!
19. If we are to give the name of Soul to everything which has perceptions and desires in the general sense which I have explained, then all simple substances or created Monads might be called souls; but as feeling is something more than a bare perception, I think it right that the general name of Monads or Entelechies should suffice for simple substances which have perception only, and that the name of Souls should be given only to those in which perception is more distinct, and is accompanied by memory.
This is directly relevant to our discussions of souls and what kinds of things might experience the Afterlife. A soul, in other words, is a sufficiently complex relationship among entelechies that also has access to memory (which itself is information, or more entelechies, I would myself add in explanation).
26. Memory provides the soul with a kind of consecutiveness, which resembles reason, but which is to be distinguished from it. Thus we see that when animals have a perception of something which strikes them and of which they have formerly had a similar perception, they are led, by means of representation in their memory, to expect what was combined with the thing in this previous perception, and they come to have feelings similar to those they had on the former occasion. For instance, when a stick is shown to dogs, they remember the pain it has caused them, and howl and run away.
An interesting observation by Leibniz. Our minds are constantly running on the fuel of association between various pieces of information.
27. And the strength of the mental image which impresses and moves them comes either from the magnitude or the number of the preceding perceptions. For often a strong impression produces all at once the same effect as a long-formed habit, or as many and oft-repeated ordinary perceptions.
28. In so far as the concatenation of their perceptions is due to the principle of memory alone, men act like the lower animals, resembling the empirical physicians, whose methods are those of mere practice without theory. Indeed, in three-fourths of our actions we are nothing but empirics. For instance, when we expect that there will be daylight to-morrow, we do so empirically, because it has always so happened until now. It is only the astronomer who thinks it on rational grounds.
Some more good observations. I think these passages reflect an important aspect of spiritual development: getting out of habit (lower-dimensional thought) and moving toward true reflection and understanding (higher-dimensional thought).
33. There are also two kinds of truths, those of reasoning and those of fact. Truths of reasoning are necessary and their opposite is impossible: truths of fact are contingent and their opposite is possible. When a truth is necessary, its reason can be found by analysis, resolving it into more simple ideas and truths, until we come to those which are primary.
46. We must not, however, imagine, as some do, that eternal truths, being dependent on God, are arbitrary and depend on His will, as Descartes, and afterwards M. Poiret, appear to have held. That is true only of contingent truths, of which the principle is fitness [convenance] or choice of the best, whereas necessary truths depend solely on His understanding and are its inner object.
Leibniz is here describing what I call “a priori reality” and “a posteriori reality,” which I think is a very important distinction. For example, the truths of mathematics are true in all possible universes, are uncreated, and unalterable. God/Source cannot influence them and is in fact bound by them. We have the ability to understand these truths (at least to some extent, currently, with our human minds), but they are not “information” in the same sense as, say, the perceptions I have of the room I am in.
47. Thus God alone is the primary unity or original simple substance, of which all created or derivative Monads are products and have their birth, so to speak, through continual fulgurations of the Divinity from moment to moment, limited by the receptivity of the created being, of whose essence it is to have limits.
There is a lot before this in which Leibniz talks about the nature of God. But the above sounds to me quite close to the New Age definition of Source. This “original simple substance” could also be called, per the Sanskrit term of Indian thought, “Cit,” or universal consciousness. Leibniz is of course operating in the traditional top-down European mode of thinking about spirituality. I personally add in the concept that all entelechies are striving to compose Source/Cit. There is therefore causality in both directions, in my view.
53. Now, as in the Ideas of God there is an infinite number of possible universes, and as only one of them can be actual, there must be a sufficient reason for the choice of God, which leads Him to decide upon one rather than another.
It’s interesting that Leibniz had the concept of multiple universes. He goes on to argue that this must be the best possible universe, since that is the only choice per se that a perfect God can make. I don’t agree with this argument, but it does lead to some interesting thinking on his part:
56. Now this connexion or adaptation of all created things to each and of each to all, means that each simple substance has relations which express all the others, and, consequently, that it is a perpetual living mirror of the universe.
Things are connected and adapted to achieve the perfection that God wills. I don’t agree with that, but here Leibniz has conceived of the holographic nature of reality—all the way back in 1714.
57. And as the same town, looked at from various sides, appears quite different and becomes as it were numerous in aspects; even so, as a result of the infinite number of simple substances, it is as if there were so many different universes, which, nevertheless are nothing but aspects of a single universe, according to the special point of view of each Monad.
OK, wow. In other words, all entelechies (in my conception actual or potential objects of awareness) are reflections of each other and of the entirety, Source.
58. And by this means there is obtained as great variety as possible, along with the greatest possible order; that is to say, it is the way to get as much perfection as possible.
This jibes with Michael’s recent speculation: “Of course, a brainstorming session makes no sense if the solution to the problem is already known. Brainstorming is something we do when we don't know the answer. Which leads us to the conclusion that the universe, or whatever lies behind it, doesn't know all the answers. The universe is a work in progress, and the various experiments – whether successful or failed – are its way of working out its own unanswered questions.”
60. […] For God in regulating the whole has had regard to each part, and in particular to each Monad, whose nature being to represent, nothing can confine it to the representing of only one part of things; though it is true that this representation is merely confused as regards the variety of particular things in the whole universe, and can be distinct only as regards a small part of things, namely, those which are either nearest or greatest in relation to each of the Monads; otherwise each Monad would be a deity. It is not as regards their object, but as regards the different ways in which they have knowledge of their object, that the Monads are limited. In a confused way they all strive after the infinite, the whole; but they are limited and differentiated through the degrees of their distinct perceptions.
This statement is directly analogous to the concept of the holographic universe, even though holography or even photography didn’t exist in Leibniz’s day. Each monad has a clear perception of what it is itself about and a less clear perception of that to which it is more distantly related. Similarly, as a holographic plate is broken into pieces, each of the pieces still contains the entire picture but is fuzzier the smaller it is.
69. Thus there is nothing fallow, nothing sterile, nothing dead in the universe, no chaos, no confusion save in appearance, somewhat as it might appear to be in a pond at a distance, in which one would see a confused movement and, as it were, a swarming of fish in the pond, without separately distinguishing the fish themselves.
The parts before this are quite interesting but long. In essence, everything in the universe in all dimensions is conscious and alive.
70. Hence it appears that each living body has a dominant entelechy, which in an animal is the soul; but the members of this living body are full of other living beings, plants, animals, each of which has also its dominant entelechy or soul.
Here is where we get into our recent discussions of the I-Thought. I would say the “dominant entelechy” in any mind is Cit itself, or Universal Consciousness. Through psycho-spiritual mechanics, this nature in turn leads to the I-Thought, and so on, relating more or less strongly to other entelechies as it reflects the entire Universe in its own manner.
77. Thus it may be said that not only the soul (mirror of an indestructible universe) is indestructible, but also the animal itself, though its mechanism may often perish in part and take off or put on an organic slough.
The parts before this need to be read through the lens of modern science, but Leibniz is here in essence stating what I believe is the reason why we experience an Afterlife: our minds are relationships between indestructible units of information, or entelechies. “Mirror of an indestructible universe” is in the original—not my addition!
78. These principles have given me a way of explaining naturally the union or rather the mutual agreement of the soul and the organic body. The soul follows its own laws, and the body likewise follows its own laws; and they agree with each other in virtue of the pre-established harmony between all substances, since they are all representations of one and the same universe.
The mind-body problem was the bugbear of the philosophers of the time: How can the soul interface with the body if they are of two different natures? Here Leibniz takes nothing less than a radical approach: the holographic universe and the interrelatedness of all things.
83. Among other differences which exist between ordinary souls and minds, some of which differences I have already noted, there is also this: that souls in general are living mirrors or images of the universe of created things, but that minds are also images of the Deity or Author of nature Himself, capable of knowing the system of the universe, and to some extent of imitating it through architectonic ensamples, each mind being like a small divinity in its own sphere.
I think this statement reflects the concept of dimensionality of thought: that is, the greater the dimension of our thought, the closer it is to God/Source. Thus, there is consciousness in all things, but minds can be of varying levels.
So that’s my gloss on the text itself, and now I’d like to do a bit of more freestyle commentary.
First, while I don’t agree with everything Leibniz says in The Monadology, I do think he anticipated many future developments in thought, some of which jibe very well with today’s advanced physics and recent trends in spirituality (New Age, if you will).
The thing that is quite stunning to me is that Leibniz was taking an approach to atomic theory that completely ignored the concept of extension, or the void of space, which Descartes had emphasized in his Meditations as fundamental to the understanding of physical reality. At the same time, Leibniz doesn’t just hint at a concept of a holographic universe—he states it outright.
But Leibniz goes beyond merely anticipating ideas that others, perhaps in ignorance of The Monadology and his other works, have fleshed out to a greater extent in the 20th and 21st centuries. That is, he does more than simply allow us to say, “Wow, it was cool he was thinking of this stuff in 1714!”
Rather, he sets forth ideas in The Monadology that can take us further toward the truth than we’ve already gone. To wit:
• He suggests, as I put it, the reverse Copernican Revolution of seeing the mind proceed toward mental content and inhering in it, as opposed to containing it. Entelechies are each their own “perception” or content, the relationships between which (“compounds”) form the whole.
• In his argument of the enlarged mill, he gives us a clue as to the nature of qualia. Instead of looking for qualia in the relationships between the parts (neurons, etc.), we may see that they are “simple substances” or entelechies with which our minds can form a relationship. That’s not a full explanation but is a big hint, I believe.
• Reality is not based upon geometry (i.e., the Universe does not equal the void of space and its contents) but on relationships (“compounds”) between units of mental content (“monads/entelechies”). This insight has direct relevance to psi, spiritual matters, and the Afterlife, in which we consistently see that physical distance is irrelevant.
• Further, the base units of matter are only superficially atoms broken further down into electrons, quarks, and so on. Although Leibniz in The Monadology is describing the workings of what we would call the “physical universe,” he does away with extension entirely in his explanation. Monads have no size or geometric qualities whatsoever. I took a 400 level course in college specifically about Leibniz, and this absence of geometry was something everyone had a hard time wrapping their heads around. I think the implications for understanding quantum mechanics and other aspects of reality are immense, since our minds have a natural and understandable tendency to form geometric models that lead us to extrapolate incorrectly.
• The transmission hypothesis becomes unnecessary. Since the base unit of reality, the monad/entelechy is mental, there is nothing to transmit from one “place” to another. Rather, minds/souls/spirits (these all being the same thing) inhere in reality by dint of relationships. As Leibniz observes, the relationships can be stronger or weaker in quality, even though everything is ultimately interrelated.
• Consequently, the Afterlife becomes easier to understand. When a person dies, some relationships become weaker while others become stronger. There is no need for a soul to “pop out of” the body, since the human soul inheres relationally in the entire universe (Source, Cit, etc.).
• Leibniz’s concept of “pre-ordained harmony” was also well ahead of its time. Today, we could analogize that this harmony is a computer program by which information is controlled. Since this could be another “bloodless” concept, we can further describe it as the mode of “perception” of Source and entelechies it comprises.
Those are some observations, but I have hardly squeezed the orange of The Monadology of all its juice. I encourage the reader to go through the rather brief text and draw further conclusions, for I think increased attention to this remarkable document can help us understand better both physical and spiritual reality and resolve the artificial dichotomy between the two.
Thank you, Michael! And the photographic additions are great. Good to know that Leibniz had stellar handwriting. :)
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 30, 2015 at 04:53 AM
Matt, I haven't gone into the entire discussion in depth. But to be frank, what I do see makes me feel that your basic premise is far-fetched.
"Thus there is nothing fallow, nothing sterile, nothing dead in the universe."
I agree with this. But information is not alive. And if you stretch the meaning of "information" so that it somehow becomes alive, then it bears no resemblance at all to what we normally call information. So why use the word?
"Thus God alone is the primary unity or original simple substance, of which all created or derivative Monads are products and have their birth, so to speak, through continual fulgurations of the Divinity from moment to moment, limited by the receptivity of the created being, of whose essence it is to have limits."
I like this! (Though admittedly, it's been at least a week since I used "fulguration" in a sentence.)
Its emphasis on "God as primary unity," and God's created beings as limited, could have come right from own mouth.
So Leibniz speaks of the core essence of the universe as God. Are you telling me that Leibniz equates God with information? I don't see it.
Leibniz was a Christian, so presumably, he prayed. Are you saying that when he prayed, he believed, in his heart of hearts, that he was praying to information?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 30, 2015 at 12:50 PM
Great stuff Matt - have you seen the Monad chapter in Beyond Physicalism?
On #78, I'm not sure how the holographic universe comes into play? My understanding is this is typically held to mean Leibniz thought a pre-established harmony existed between the mental and physical such that you think about moving something and then move it because God planned it all out beforehand.
Posted by: SPatel | August 30, 2015 at 01:39 PM
Leibniz was one of Art's past lives?
Posted by: no one | August 30, 2015 at 05:10 PM
Thanks Michael for another insightful and thought provoking post. The Bruce Siegal quote above- "Bottom line: I think life/consciousness/love is central to both the universe and my own being, not some abstract, bloodless, nebulous, concept like "information." -really resonates with me. I am finally reading (and greatly enjoying!) a book that I've bumped into throughout my life- William James "The Varieties of Religious Experience". Last week I was struck by a quote from a Mystical Experiencer in James's book- "Knowledge and Love are One, and the measure is suffering". Love and Knowledge being ONE had a nice "ring" to it but it's true meaning somehow eluded me. The day after encountering the quote I watched the Movie "The Visitor" with Richard Jenkins (highly recommended!) While watching the film I suddenly thought- this story really articulates how Love and Knowledge are one! In the film the lead character Walter develops an unlikely quick/deep/profound connection with several people. His Knowledge/Love of these people(and an awareness of their suffering) create dramatic changes in his life. Needless to say it was a striking coincidence to encounter the James quote, then the film and now to see your blog entry on "Information" having a connotation problem. I couldn't agree more! :)
Posted by: Hugh | August 30, 2015 at 05:50 PM
"This is a kind of Copernican Revolution in reverse, in which information does not revolve around the mind, but the mind revolves around the information; or rather, the mind is a relationship among infinite non-local modes of experiencing awareness."
Matt, I get that! And Bruce, I believe information and love are the same thing (except we don't readily see it that way because we compartmentalise everything).
When I had my 'mystical' experience at the age of nine, I felt suddenly dipped into a warm and loving sea of knowledge that I recognised immediately and which I can only describe as the feeling that one hundred-thousand or more years of learning came back to me in a flash. Everything fitted into place, both at the intellectual and feeling level and I got, as a culmination, the message that was important to me at that moment in time.
It's a message that I've never forgotten and, in essence, it was this: Don't allow the behaviour of other to twist your essential self into a resentful and negatively reactive human being. That is the only big mistake that you can make in this life.
In short, it meant let it all wash right over your head. See it, feel it, then let it go. The understanding, the learning, is what matters. Beneath it all you must keep a clean heart.
That's it in a nutshell. But then I so so like brevity. :)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | August 31, 2015 at 06:07 AM
Ps. The sea of knowledge was like a loving hand that reached out to catch me as I was about to fall into some kind of mental/emotional abyss. Had I gone down the thinking path that I was travelling at the moment of intervention I believe my personality and character might be very different today. It was a stitch in time.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | August 31, 2015 at 06:10 AM
Bruce wrote,
||I agree with this. But information is not alive. And if you stretch the meaning of "information" so that it somehow becomes alive, then it bears no resemblance at all to what we normally call information. So why use the word?||
I'm saying that we should *not* use the word! I'm saying that what we have been calling "information" in the contexts of these discussions is actually something else! Or, to put it another way, the definition and connotation of the term "information" is too limiting. We need to use a bigger concept, perhaps that of "entelechy."
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 31, 2015 at 07:19 AM
SPatel wrote,
||Great stuff Matt - have you seen the Monad chapter in Beyond Physicalism?||
No, what's that? I'm interested.
||On #78, I'm not sure how the holographic universe comes into play? My understanding is this is typically held to mean Leibniz thought a pre-established harmony existed between the mental and physical such that you think about moving something and then move it because God planned it all out beforehand.||
I think your understanding is correct. However, I think we can take Leibniz's concept and give it a bit of twist and make it relevant in the 21st century.
Today, the common understanding of matter among materialists (which tends to be pre-quantum mechanics in outlook, though that's another issue) is that of "stuff" bouncing off other "stuff." This is the mechanics that made sense to Descartes and Newton back in the day. The spirit, being immaterial, couldn't push the body in any way; hence, the mind-body problem.
We know now, however, that matter doesn't behave like that anyway. The gravitational constant, the spins and charges of the subatomic particles, and so on, appear to be made-up rules. Arbitrary "laws." These relationship of such rules to the concept of a pre-ordained harmony should be clear. Leibniz was saying, in essence, "Let's skip this 'bodies' and 'extension' guff and go right to the heart of the matter." Fiat reality is what it is. The holographic universe then comes into play when we say that things are only superficially connected by physical "laws" and govern more by interrelationships between units of mental content.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 31, 2015 at 11:55 AM
Matt, Another excellent post. I think your idea is correct provided that we allow that the information units (IUs) are imbued with life itself. They are living things.
Posted by: no one | August 31, 2015 at 01:11 PM
SPatel - "have you seen the Monad chapter in Beyond Physicalism?"
Matt - "No, what's that? I'm interested."
http://goo.gl/72fyQ4
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 31, 2015 at 04:54 PM
Bruce - "I watched this knowing, the whole time, that nothing meaningful or even very entertaining was likely to happen."
Hey, I own a copy of "Robot Monster" on DVD. I can relate.
http://goo.gl/bQ6PHp
Posted by: Michael Prescott | August 31, 2015 at 04:57 PM
"We need to use a bigger concept, perhaps that of "entelechy.""
Ok! Matt, you and I see things exactly the same. I have nothing to argue with you about. Time to find a new blog at which to hang out and make trouble ;-)
Posted by: no one | August 31, 2015 at 05:47 PM
Matt said:
"I'm saying that what we have been calling "information" in the contexts of these discussions is actually something else!"
OK, I get it. This article is for people who've been tempted to take "information" too seriously. As you know, that hasn't been my tendency, so it's not really addressed to someone like me, except insofar as it might introduce me to Leibniz's viewpoint.
What you've written is sort of a wake-up call for information theorists. :)
In regard to Leibniz's viewpoint, I resonate strongly with at least part of what he says.
As you and I have discussed, though, I have a strong preference for language that makes it easy to talk to the average person. So I'm less excited by words like entelechy and monad than you. (I have made a commitment, though, to use fulguration at least once a week in conversation.)
I can't help but notice that when Leibniz wants to talk about what is *most* fundamental, his language gets very simple indeed:
"Thus God alone is the primary unity or original simple substance"
Now that I'm comfortable with.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 31, 2015 at 06:40 PM
Instead of *wake-up* call for information theorists, make that "a little friendly coaching." :)
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 31, 2015 at 06:43 PM
Matt - Michael linked to the book. I wish I could give an appropriate summary but honestly the chapter on Monadology was one of the most difficult for me to grasp. I'll take another stab at it.
In other news, found an article by Hammeroff that suggests the Holographic Mind theory of Pribram is, in fact, correct:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stuart-hameroff/is-your-brain-really-a-co_b_7756700.html
I enjoyed his note about the mind-as-computer hypothesis - practically a religion to some materialist fanatics - is beginning to see rubber isn't going to meet road -->
"For example, beginning more modestly, a world-wide consortium has simulated the already-known 302 neuron 'brain' of a simple round worm called C elegans. The biological worm is fairly active, swimming nimbly and purposefully, but the simulated C elegans just lies there, with no functional behavior. Something is missing. Funding agencies are getting nervous. Bring in the 'P.R. guys..."
Posted by: SPatel | August 31, 2015 at 06:45 PM
Michael said:
"Hey, I own a copy of "Robot Monster" on DVD."
Can I borrow it? Lifetime is all reruns this week.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 31, 2015 at 07:01 PM
no one wrote,
||Matt, Another excellent post. I think your idea is correct provided that we allow that the information units (IUs) are imbued with life itself. They are living things.||
And so it is!
Posted by: Matt Rouge | August 31, 2015 at 08:18 PM
@ Matt
OK, I've done it again.
As I've mentioned, I'm on vacation, so I have more time than usual to reflect and correspond. And for at least the second time in the past few days, I've written a post in the morning that I've regretted later in the day.
This is time it's my previous post to you.
Here's the thing. While it does state my viewpoint, it's also a bit sarcastic and belittling. I really dislike that way of relating. You deserve better. I'm sorry.
Writing posts on a forum like this is an interesting practice. It's a conversation in slow motion, where I get to observe myself after the fact, learn something, and practice behaving appropriately.
And the fact is, I like myself better when I'm speaking as a friend and equal.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | August 31, 2015 at 09:36 PM
Tonight's (Tuesday's) "Coast to Coast AM show will feature:
"A graduate of Northwestern Medical School, Dr. Bill Miller has been a physician in academic and private practice for over 30 years. Combining his unique observations about patterns of disease from medicine with current scientific discoveries in many other fields, Dr. Miller will discuss how our cells and microbes have elemental cognition and a previously unappreciated capacity for discrimination and awareness and may even be a large part of who we are and how we think and act."
Posted by: Roger Knights | September 01, 2015 at 10:12 AM
Thanks, Julie Baxter, for writing something I needed at the moment:
"It's a message that I've never forgotten and, in essence, it was this: Don't allow the behaviour of other to twist your essential self into a resentful and negatively reactive human being. That is the only big mistake that you can make in this life.
"In short, it meant let it all wash right over your head. See it, feel it, then let it go. The understanding, the learning, is what matters. Beneath it all you must keep a clean heart."
However, I implore anyone here who's vulnerable to a big stock market drop to get out now. The seven fat years are over. "First loss, best loss." I predict the Dow will dip below 13,500 before year-end--and that 2016 will be a down year. The house of cards is built too high (too much leverage and interdependence=fragility), there are many winds rising to knock it down, and central banks are out of ammo.
Posted by: Roger Knights | September 01, 2015 at 12:16 PM
Pleased to be of some help, Roger. :)
The message was multi-layered and simultaneously relayed with different nuances. For instance, it also contained a message to the effect of, 'don't ever feel like this (like I was feeling at the time), you don't ever need to. Later in life you will have almost everything you ever wanted and those things will just come to you'. The message was that these events were somehow contingent upon my maintaining a sense of innocence and trust in the future and in forces greater than me. I was made to feel that I was special and very loved and protected. And there was much, much more.
While I put all this into words here, it didn't arrive in words, as such. It was all conveyed in a split second, like a wave, a signal, passing through my head. It was something that I recognised instantly and it stopped me in my tracks. I feel I could go on translating it forever without ever exhausting the content. Even so, it's quite stressful trying to put it into words.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 01, 2015 at 04:46 PM
Bruce,
I didn't find your posts offensive at all!
||As you and I have discussed, though, I have a strong preference for language that makes it easy to talk to the average person. So I'm less excited by words like entelechy and monad than you.||
Leibniz was writing to philosophers and scientists, and that's what I'm doing here as well (in this case, the intellectuals of this blog, for that's how I think of you). I am not trying to "popularize" here. The Higgs boson is hard to understand as well.
This is brain-busting, worldview-upturning stuff. It's *especially* hard to wrap one's head around mental content as being "external" to the mind (or at least, not limited to being stuck in the neurons, never to exit--but even neuronal patterns are external to our minds, since our minds are relationships between mental content).
||What you've written is sort of a wake-up call for information theorists. :)||
I think it's a big twist on that way of seeing things, though not a negation. It's somewhat similar to "my" twist on the transmission hypothesis: it's not totally wrong but by no means tenable as is.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | September 01, 2015 at 05:48 PM
Julie wrote:
"It was something that I recognised instantly and it stopped me in my tracks. I feel I could go on translating it forever without ever exhausting the content. Even so, it's quite stressful trying to put it into words."
I've had the feeling, so I only needed a reminder. Thanks again.
Posted by: Roger Knights | September 01, 2015 at 06:50 PM
Julie said:
||And Bruce, I believe information and love are the same thing (except we don't readily see it that way because we compartmentalise everything).||
Julie, I agree with that.
Here's a thought I have along those lines, one that also seems pertinent to the beautiful mystical experience you described.
We don't truly know someone, until we love them.
And the reverse is equally true: if we really, really, get to know someone (or something) we will love that person or thing.
So in their ultimate form, knowledge and love are the same.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | September 02, 2015 at 02:10 AM
Matt said:
||I'm saying that we should *not* use the word! I'm saying that what we have been calling "information" in the contexts of these discussions is actually something else!||
This is the point I've been making here for a while. So I guess I should be happy. What threw me in reading your essay, now that I think about it, was the title:
"Did Leibniz anticipate an information-based reality?"
Not a good title, it seems to me, for someone whose main point is that we should avoid using the word!
Better might have been:
Did Leibnitz grasp what information theorists are missing?
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | September 02, 2015 at 02:38 AM
Matt said:
"I am not trying to "popularize" here."
Call me crazy, but I don't have a distaste for philosophical terminology just because it reaches fewer people. I prefer simple language because it speaks not just to the mind but to the heart.
I think that makes it more powerful, more meaningful, and closer to the truth.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | September 02, 2015 at 02:40 AM
Bruce wrote,
||Not a good title, it seems to me, for someone whose main point is that we should avoid using the word!||
One has to start with the concept people know and go from there. Also, I don't think information theorists necessarily believe in an information-based reality.
||Call me crazy, but I don't have a distaste for philosophical terminology just because it reaches fewer people. I prefer simple language because it speaks not just to the mind but to the heart.
I think that makes it more powerful, more meaningful, and closer to the truth.||
I think the overall language used by Leibniz is pretty clear, especially since it is 201 years old. I hope my own language is also clear.
But some stuff is pretty hard to understand, especially if it goes against the current paradigm. It's very easy for us to imagine a heliocentric solar system now, but I'm sure back in the day it was *extremely* hard for people even to picture it in their minds. Easier for astronomers, but quite hard for average people who were used to thinking of the earth as unimaginably large and the sun and moon as being those smallish disks in the sky.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | September 02, 2015 at 02:01 PM
"Call me crazy, but I don't have a distaste for philosophical terminology just because it reaches fewer people. I prefer simple language because it speaks not just to the mind but to the heart.
I think that makes it more powerful, more meaningful, and closer to the truth."
Hear, hear. I hate the kind of dry, academic, long-winded pontifications we had to wade through at university. Anything that can't be put into a few simple words isn't worth saying.
I think I must be of a Zen disposition: give me the bottom line and I'll work out the rest for myself. :)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 02, 2015 at 03:09 PM
Like all terminology philosophical jargon has some use, though a lot of it in modern times is used to make a materialist feel smarter while denying the obvious gap between nonconscious matter & the immaterial aspects of the mental.
That said, I can see where Matt is trying to with utilizing this vocab. Like Whitehead creating new terms, absorbing new vocab helps us avoid assuming we know things - see the materialist who insists on thinking of souls as substances like atoms...or insisting matter is like what matter was assumed to be before the advent of quantum mechanics and its apparent mockery of Order, Time, Causality, and Distance.
Posted by: SPatel | September 03, 2015 at 02:59 AM
@Bruce: "in their ultimate form, knowledge and love are the same."
That would make a wonderful Zen-like aphorism. :)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 03, 2015 at 10:39 AM
"Anything that can't be put into a few simple words isn't worth saying." - Julie
Unfortunately most of the big truths of science, art, psychology, etc. can't be put into a few simple words. Try compressing quantum mechanics into a few simple words, or the meaning of Shakespeare, or how to design a Saturn V rocket, or what antibodies do.
Life is complicated.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 03, 2015 at 02:04 PM
It is indeed, Michael. But if Einstein felt that things should and can be simplified wherever possible then I see no reason why I shouldn't either. :)
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Einstein
That aside, I disagree with you in as much as most things in science, art and psychology can, in fact, be put in fairly simple language. And as far as QM is concerned, whatever the language it's still a little understood, mind-blowing concept.
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 03, 2015 at 02:10 PM
Julie,
I too prefer theses that use somewhat common easily understandable words. I think that if one has to make up words to explain a new concept then those words obfuscate the meaning of what is being said especially when that jargon is part of a philosophical dissertation. While I don't think a few simple words are able to explain everything, I agree that less is more and coining new words makes me think that those who do that really don't have a clear concept of what they are trying to say. - AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | September 03, 2015 at 02:37 PM
Einstein said "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." This is the principle of Occam's Razor. J.B.S. Haldane said "Now my own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." Since our physical Universe is a subset of something else, viz. the topic of conversation here, the encasing principle (the Mind of God or perhaps several nested eggs or layers) of the Universe is, I think necessarily, fairly complex. I think the Afterlife is a passage to the next higher layer.
Posted by: JW | September 03, 2015 at 11:25 PM
Exactly, AOD! Never use a big word where a small one will do. It's one of the basic rules of grammar. Otherwise one becomes intoxicated with the exuberance of one's own verbosity. ;)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 03, 2015 at 11:51 PM
“Like Whitehead creating new terms, absorbing new vocab helps us avoid assuming we know things - …”
I agree with your whole post, SPatel – well said.
“Life is complicated”
I agree. There is a great line in the rock group The Who’s mid-60s hit ‘Substitute’: “The simple things you see are all complicated” – a great catch line I think!
For me, much that comes over in our culture as elegantly simple and spontaneous is, in fact, highly contrived and the result of a great deal of hard work. I recall reading that Karl Marx once said that the reason he wrote such longs books was because he “didn’t have the time to write short books”. So perhaps when initially discussing new and difficult ideas (especially on a blog when we also have day jobs!) complex language is unavoidable.
Finally, with regards to Einstein’s comments concerning making it as simple as you can but not simpler, I’ve always taken that as meaning something different. For me, Einstein was warning against the excessive use of Occam’s Razor; in other word warning against seeking a false or unearned simplicity. For me, if the complexity is there it has to be called out (or, if ignored, done so knowingly).
Posted by: Simon Oakes | September 04, 2015 at 02:50 AM
Yes indeed Julie. When I say that 'the feces collides with the oscillator' it loses some of it's punch, doesn't it! - AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | September 04, 2015 at 07:54 AM
Julie,
I just heard a brilliant apparently highly-educated commenter on National Public Radio say "At this moment in time". Now can anyone think of a simpler way to say this?
Mmmm?
How about--- 'NOW'? ;^} - AOD
Posted by: Amos Oliver Doyle | September 04, 2015 at 09:29 AM
"Finally, with regards to Einstein’s comments concerning making it as simple as you can but not simpler, I’ve always taken that as meaning something different. For me, Einstein was warning against the excessive use of Occam’s Razor; in other word warning against seeking a false or unearned simplicity. For me, if the complexity is there it has to be called out (or, if ignored, done so knowingly)." - Simon
Einstein *hated* academia - probably as much as I do - and the long-winded, jargon-riddled, dry-as-dust pontificating that it accommodates. It's a language often used either as a tool to impress or to bamboozle. I can no longer be bothered trying to sift the wheat from the chaff.
The most useful piece of knowledge that I gained from my university days came form my first-year tutor who spoke thusly, "Bear in mind that you are now playing the academic game. That, in essence, is what it is - a means to a place in the world and the tools with which to make a living".
Given a few more weeks I would have figured that for myself. But it was reassuring to hear a seasoned old academic offer that warning.
Einstein got only a third-class degree because he attended so few lectures. Anyone care to guess why? :)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 04, 2015 at 01:15 PM
Considering all the time and effort Matt put into this post, I hope we can continue with a discussion of his substantive points, rather than getting sidetracked into a conversation about the words we use. (I admit I've contributed to this detour myself.)
Whether you like Leibniz' terminology or not, do you think monadology advances our understanding or is it a false trail?
Discuss.
Posted by: Michael Prescott | September 04, 2015 at 01:43 PM
Sorry, Michael, but I'm not at university and am not obliged to attend lectures.
Toodle pip, old chap.
(My apologies for the brevity.)
Posted by: Julie Baxter | September 04, 2015 at 02:22 PM
"Whether you like Leibniz' terminology or not, do you think monadology advances our understanding or is it a false trail?"
It's definitely worth exploring further. That each monad holds within an intuitive understanding of all reality has a few potential offerings for cognition:
-Humans are really good at separating the background from the important factors in a situation. This suggests a kind of suppression in general, though not at the level of Monads.
-Yet when we add in Psi, as noted in Beyond Physicalism things like Remote Viewing, Knowing the past of a person or object by touch, and even Precognition make sense. Obviously this raises the predestiny question though if we think of all timelines existing in potential with only one timeline experienced things don't seem as worrisome. (For the record I don't buy space and time as total illusions.)
-If Hammeroff is right, our brains hold a kind of fractal pattern that suggests Pribram's Holonomic-Brain theory is correct. Yet Hameroff & Penrose's own Orch-OR suggests the brain evokes a latent consciousness-potential. So could "God" be the total consciousness of reality, the Monad of Monads?
Have to go through it again, but those are some thoughts that arose on first consideration.
Posted by: SPatel | September 04, 2015 at 03:26 PM
OK,I'll bite. I don't see information being alive. Maybe it's just that consciousness generates information. But I'll also be the first to admit that maybe Leibniz' ideas are over my head.
Although I did have something happen to me today that maybe relates to it, or is synchronicity, or just coincidence. I was doing something sad - calling to make sure that my father's memorial stone had been engraved - something that takes months to get someone to do, at least here. During the call, I had to state his name of course. Luckily, it had finally been done. Just a few minutes later, I was reading an article about a cop behaving badly. I wasn't really that interested in the article, but read anyway. Two paragraphs in, there's my father's name exactly - a name shared exactly by the cop in the article, who was laying down the law on the misbehaving cop. It's not a really unusual name, but not common either. I've never before come across the first-and-last-name combination together.
Here's another one. I was studying international relations in college, which of course centered on U.S. foreign policy. Immediately after class, I called my friend to get together. I must have mixed up the number, because the "person" I reached was "The Pentagon" (that's how they answer).
It's as if sometimes similar information gets entangled, or the results are supposed to be random, but somehow something goes wrong.
Posted by: Kathleen | September 04, 2015 at 03:54 PM
Michael said:
"rather than getting sidetracked into a conversation about the words we use."
Matt's post is largely *about* the words we use.
For one thing, he has said that one of his main points is: don't use the word "information." It's a red herring. (And I agree with him.)
But beyond that, he's introducing us to a whole new/old vocabulary—monad, entelechy, and so forth. That's the heart of his essay, right? He's sharing his excitement for talking about the universe using that specific language—Leibniz's language.
So no—I don't see how discussing the words we use is getting sidetracked.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | September 05, 2015 at 01:13 AM
"do you think monadology advances our understanding or is it a false trail?"
I'll put it this way: Leibniz does seem to be expressing some basic truths. (I mentioned a few earlier.) It would take more work than I care to put in, though, to see if I really feel comfortable with his overall viewpoint.
Posted by: Bruce Siegel | September 05, 2015 at 01:38 AM
"I'll put it this way: Leibniz does seem to be expressing some basic truths. (I mentioned a few earlier.) It would take more work than I care to put in, though, to see if I really feel comfortable with his overall viewpoint. " - Bruce
Is that because you just don't find the theory to be useful to you in your daily life?
I like Matt's/Libniz's theory. It has begun to make a lot of sense to me - especially with the clarification that "information" isn't being used in the normal sense and that these units are imbued with life.
However, I can see where someone might say, "OK, great. What do I do with that?". Whereas, if we look at some uplifting NDE story someone could say, "I get it, it's all about love. Now I know what I need to try to do every day; exude more love".
Personally, I see what Matt wrote as being useful b/c it explains *how* anything like personal survival beyond the physical is possible. It gets to the mechanics of the thing.
Posted by: no one | September 05, 2015 at 09:54 AM
Bruce wrote,
||Matt's post is largely *about* the words we use.
For one thing, he has said that one of his main points is: don't use the word "information." It's a red herring. (And I agree with him.)
But beyond that, he's introducing us to a whole new/old vocabulary—monad, entelechy, and so forth.||
I think those are the only really new words here, and they are synonyms.
In this case, the whole point is to use a word unladen with preconceptions; otherwise, we get into surface-level arguments as we have in the past, along the lines of, "Information can't be XYZ--it's just that stuff in my computer!"
I was a philosophy major in college. I gotta say, the language being used here (by Leibniz and myself, I hope) and even the concepts involved are not very complicated. Try reading Hegel sometime. Here's the *first* paragraph of Phenomenology of Mind:
||§ 90. THE knowledge, which is at the start or immediately our object, can be nothing else than just that which is immediate knowledge, knowledge of the immediate, of what is. We have, in dealing with it, to proceed, too, in an immediate way, to accept what is given, not altering anything in it as it is presented before us, and keeping mere apprehension free from conceptual comprehension.||
And it really, really gets worse from there. And no, I don't think Hegel really has a lot to offer.
Posted by: Matt Rouge | September 05, 2015 at 10:21 AM
"69. Thus there is nothing fallow, nothing sterile, nothing dead in the universe, no chaos, no confusion save in appearance, somewhat as it might appear to be in a pond at a distance, in which one would see a confused movement and, as it were, a swarming of fish in the pond, without separately distinguishing the fish themselves."
Im reluctant to respond and have more questions than opinions. I'm pretty intimidated by the nature of his work and Matt's ability to understand it well. No doubt a remnant of his philosophy background, but superior analyical reasoning, critical thinking and intelligence all come to mind when I read this.
Here goes though, in my personal opinion, the above goes to the interconnected web of the universe that is often described by NDEers. And why would anything ever be "dead"? If we are all made of atoms, atoms are made of stuff that's smaller ... And those are made of stuff that's smaller... It doesn't seem like there is a solid anything. We get smaller and smaller until we're reduced to vibrations. As 'no one' pointed out with an article or research in terms of radio signals, something is out there. We can't put it to a solid substance, but it's something. And it's more than 'physical'. An energy if you will. And there's no way it can die. A part of us is definitely eternal, but the hard part is figuring out what comes together when a body - an arrangement of those vibrations - dies and never comes back to conscious 'physical' life.
Do we just rearrange ourselves and have vibrations come together in another form? Are we only conscious because the right vibrations came together to form us and everything that makes us, us? Randomly? What new vibrations pick up where we leave off? I'm with this guy, and think this post is fascinating, but practically, I'm trying to put it all together and figure out what it means when no body exists to filter this conscious being through. When I die, I won't experience the same, but how will I experience anything? What other experiences are there after this and what does it mean to be alive in the next world, without our bodies? What's it like without the 5 senses? What is it that is "related" to the entire universe when we die? Maybe these questions can't be answered because the 5 senses always have done a poor job of seeing, hearing, touching the other realms.
In answer to Michael's question, I certainly wouldn't disregard this material. It's pushing me to further understanding.
Posted by: Sleepers | September 05, 2015 at 04:47 PM
Consciousness is so different in kind from what we normally experience as matter that there is no way to really describe consciousness if you are stuck in materialist thinking. Consciousness is completely different from matter. And from what I've read in near death experience descriptions it comes from a completely different dimension or plane than matter. The terminology that near death experiencers use to describe the physics of where they went sounds an awful lot like how Michael Talbot describes the physics of holographic film.
Posted by: Art | September 05, 2015 at 11:36 PM