Leibniz Monadology From a Biopsychosocial (BPS) Perspective.

Leibniz Monadology From a BPS Model Perspective.

Introduction.
Leibniz, probably the best mathematician-philosopher in history, in our opinion, unnecessarily wrestled three centuries ago with the perceptual and the conceptual aspects of existential reality, what we have termed the ontological and the epistemological sides of one coin. He ignored that his narrative is a human species version conditioned in its absolute truth content to the phenomenological resolution limits of the species and the combinatorial capacities to infer the probable structure function of everything relevant but beyond the threshold of being adequately represented for metaphysical logic analysis. Why must his physical brain ‘res cogitans’ assume that ‘attributions’ like dimensional ‘res extensa’ can exist independent of a real material particle beyond human capacity to measure? Is it more credible to posit counterintuitive conjectures/speculations than to admit our human brain limitation and market our poem of existential reality as just what it is, an evolving Epistemontological hybrid complexity witnessed as experienced by our limited human brain and narrated when its content is conditioned to the quantum theoretical/Bayesian logic probability of its occurrence. After all, the human narrator, with its uniqueness and limitations, is at the center of the universe transmitting to other humans the most credible account of his mesoscopic reality. Many times we need to prioritize the probable truth content of our models over the elegant esthetic beauty of its narrative content. Keep in mind that the redness of an apple cannot phenomenologically, independently exist without the material aggregation of unit dimensional –but invisible- particulate matter that made the apple reach the threshold of our human brain perceptual reach. Likewise there cannot be a carrier wave or field without a material particle(s) to be carried. There is a force because there is a particle mass in motion. There is density because matter particles are distributed inside a volume. Unfortunately neither Feynman, Descartes nor Kant were contemporaneous with Leibniz. Where that unit dimensional physical particle (s) originates has been the subject of many beautiful poems across the ages of recorded history, Big Bang, theological models of creation, self creating and evolving reality faith in physicalist cults, etc. As long as there is a beautiful woman, there will be good or bad poetry depending on its verifiable, falsifiable, and consistent predictability by all observers in the same spatio-temporal coordinates to neutralize the Einstenian relativistic issues. It is perhaps time that people start discerning the map from the territory, the conceptual from the perceptual, the mental from the sense phenomenal. And stop thinking about things coming into existence in a ‘vacuum’ out of ‘nothingness’, it makes elegant poetry but nature abhors the vacuum! On the other end of the argument, limited as our brains are, why should we discard the probability of these poems? But some poems are more credible than others as we try again to briefly argue in favor of variations on the Dirac formalism of the invariant and interacting variants and how they influence our perceptual perspective as we further blur its absolute truth content when narrating it in our adopted language as detailed before elsewhere.

Argumentation.
The more things change, the more they stay the same, it seems. Scientific and philosophical specialties seem to evolve by ‘knowing’ more and more about less and less until they approach the asymptotic limit of knowing everything about nothing! It is irresponsible to exclusively dream poems about multiverses and consciously ignoring the real needs for immediate solutions about health and human suffering in general. But it may also be irresponsible when humans are exclusively concerned about their biological health and psycho-social needs, just existing like the evolved members of the subhuman species pack. Most people, admittedly, must limit their contribution to improve on the environmental conditions they found on their inherited and acquired resources. What may be wrong is when those blessed with the advantages of a good superior education feel no conscious responsibility other than self interest conveniences and in that respect live like a sophisticated subhuman species, totally oblivious of their ethical and moral responsibilities towards the less privileged biosphere neighbors. This becomes all justified, as claimed, under the aegis of a misunderstood individual freedom and libertarianism.
A monad need not be conceptualized in terms of a unit adimensional singularity as a changing ‘physical’ reality experiencing a progression in space time while it is simultaneously undergoing changes unless you can manage intractable computations leading nowhere. It perhaps makes more sense to conceptualize the unit particle as an invariant, unit dimensional physical particle where the circumstantial and interacting environmental variables around constitute the variant elements (e.g., aggregations and their corresponding attributions in form, size, etc) that are responsible for the human physical brain to possibly experience perceptual errors as to the particle aggregates reality in se.
In our opinion, some self serving theoretical physicists have confused the unit dimensional monad particle with aggregates thereof. It is the latter that is subjected to changing variations as controlled by coexisting environmental complex interactions. These variations are both objective and reliable substantive in appearance but only when appraised by ‘normal’ observers. As often repeated, there are at times honest and unsuspectingly biased or diseased observers reporting in a foreign adopted language with a significantly different grammatical structure that influences the measured/experienced truth content of the object/event being analyzed. This means that change is not intrinsic to unit dimensional monads as the ‘dynamic description’ of ‘modes’ in modern physics would lead you to believe. The dynamic behavior of the aggregates may dynamically change but not the monad in our BPS variation perspective. It is always more credible to assume as more logically probable the real existence of helical structures albeit their perceptual invisibility than to expect the student to believe in a domain where opposite-handed helices have only convenient virtual and un-substantive existence. The perceptual mirror reflection of an object is only virtual as to the structure/function performance of the reflection but very real in its phenomenological objective presence.
There cannot be monads not carrying unit dimensional matter particles that progress internally, only aggregates can do so as a function of causally efficient environmental factors, locally and universal in space-time. Only aggregates progression has something to do with perceptions. The individualized parameters of the probable progression in space-time are determined by their path as modified by environmental causality factors both local and transfinitely. The initial and final state of a monad as such is invariant.
Following the suggestion of philosopher Arthur North Whitehead, we can analogize by considering the human being at conception ‘in utero’ as being ‘tabula rasa’ and its cognitive evolution starting by incorporating genetic data from both parents and acquired data from the uterine environment. At that fleeting moment in space-time we may conceptualize an invariant human monad equivalent ready to start its evolutionary path as soon as the fertilized ovum divides. From then on sense phenomenal perceptual input into the developing human brain may be mechanically described/explained on mechanical grounds and corroborated with modern fMRI and EEG measurements. We may, as Feynman stresses, rely almost exclusively on the measured or consistenly observed results depending on the language maturity of the subject and developmental age. His cognitive path into adulthood becomes a function of his genetic/acquired data base content and evidenced as operant conditioning Skinnerian and/or Freudian behavior or combinations thereof. Here again, we need not confuse the monistic material with pluralistic ‘spiritual’ that Leibniz’s ‘graded panexperientialism’ struggled with or the ‘heterogeneity of modes’ modern mathematical theorists dream about.
Within the context of our biopsychosocial (BPS) model of brain dynamics, the invariant ‘enduring substance’ stem cell represent the human monad equivalent iff we accept the Lamarckian concept that DNA carries environmental information. Consequently a human monad carries a past in the present and the future course of evolution of their aggregates will be determined by internal neurohumoral and external environmental variables. However, considering the loud objection of the physicalist faith adherents regarding Leibniz premises on the required existence of a ‘higher order consciousness’ intelligent design albeit his deliberate goal of restricting his analysis to mathematical logic, we can only comment that if the materialist wish to rest their case about self-evident cosmological and subPlankian order on the basis of the adequacy of their self organizing/self creating poem and want to violate natural laws of physics in the process, that is their conscious choice. Leibniz explicitly recognized the superiority of animals heightened phenomenological perceptions thus implying that the human brain needs ‘further assistance’ about ‘necessary and eternal truths’. By suggesting a mathematical logic based sub-model about a reciprocal information transfer with transfinite coordinates in space-time via dark baryonic DNA/RNA receptor, we may be answering Leibniz and providing a putative source of survival information for humans across generations. Theological faith can also be reasoned. Interestingly, Leibniz recognizes that existential reality is in the brain of the beholder (‘human nexus’) and his ontological sense phenomenal acuity and his epistemological capacity to make adequate symbolic/sentential language representations. Operationally Leibniz ignores the ‘human nexus’ and emphasizes more on the epistemological element of a hybrid existential reality. It should also be noticed the exclusively human attribute of being able to introspectively reflect and discover the difference between the “I” and the “other”. Leibniz seems to prefer the doctrine of the excluded middle when he suggests the true-false binary code analytical approach. Notably, he accepts that some knowledge may escape human cognition. In reality both ontological and epistemological ‘truths’ are contingent on the phenomenological acuity and an objective and unbiased metaphysical logic analysis free –when possible- from framework perspective restrictions. The truth content of consistent and falsifiable predictions from cognitive results are as reliable as the axioms, postulates or primary principles on which they rest.. Arguably, one may defend theosophical predictions along same lines of argument as we use in assuming quantum theoretical analysis of probabilities of occurrence. But we are not prepared to sustain that the opposite of such propositions are necessarily impossible as Leibniz argued. This especially so if we necessarily want to avoid inaccessible infinities and have to operationally limit the number of variable at play, i.e., we have to settle for a proximate, apparent final causality by acknowledging human brain combinatorial complexity and accepting a unit dimensional physical particle or ‘grain’. Reality for the human brain must be the same at the cosmological or subatomic level of organization. This is another argument in favor of having an invariant unit-dimensional physical particle followed by a series of n number of relevant variant and interacting contingencies which we must limit to n-1 transfinities or just the very few elements in the series by approximations. This is part of our proposed Dirac method when subject to a vector analysis. A careful analysis of Leibniz theoretical inferences, as opposed to his operational conclusions, indicates his convictions that the phenomenological and the metaphysical are two sides of the same coin, aka the Epistemontological hybrid existential reality. The credibility of this approach should be advanced when quantum theoretical and general relativistic models are reconciled and a reciprocal information transfer between neocortex premotor brain attractor phase space and transfinity is experimentally or logically documented. Informed intuitions almost drive you to suspect that all events in nature are interconnected and a dynamic symmetry may be a goal as opposed to a given, associated with providing a stable and propitious environment for the human species to survive. The symmetry framework goal implies a negentropic violation of natural law dictum that systems evolve to a more stable minimum free energy configuration. But the dynamic order is witnessed and probably responds to transfinite forces in operation for a master universal plan we all strain to reason out but beyond cognitive reach. Should an universe-God replace individual Gods, a la Spinoza? In our BPS model super symmetry is a requirement to justify the important role of gravitons to mediate human information transfer to and from transfinity to reach which God…., an ‘a priori’ universal God from which the JudeoChrIslamic ‘a posteriori’ Gods evolved? Once again, we posit that it may be possible to consider an universal God invariant subjected to variants in the way humans vitally ‘experience’ its ‘presence’ as conditioned, modified and influenced by the ever changing evolution of existential environmental realities in the biosphere. This experience is then modified further by the individualized observer as he consciously, freely make choices of the best adaptive response to challenges in the existing biopsychosocial (BPS) equilibrium (derivative human ‘monads?). The alternative interpretation favored by mathematical theorists, i.e., a self-sustained, generating and evolving causal dynamics progression interpretation, will imply a spontaneous negentropic evolution of complexity and other contrived ‘behavior’ of charges, etc. that remains like an article of faith contrary to human experience and the physical laws of nature as we now interpret them. It is a tribute to human intelligence to create such elegant model poems but they leave too many questions un-answered because it leaves out the human brain dynamics factor. We insist that our human theological model of historical biopsychosocial equilibrium that guarantees the survival of the species across generations can be reinforced with metaphysical logic arguments, a sort of Wills’s “Grace Based on Reason.” if you will. Personally this author emotionally feels as if ultimately, humans are trying to ‘restore’ the universal God Monad symmetry invariance based on our back-up genetic and acquired memory storage but, once having controlled the emotional bias religious default, metaphysical logic reasoning tells me that before progressing towards a more perfect world as a goal, man has to be alive, happy and psico-socially accepted in his ‘pack’ because this progression is the exclusive work of our human species, cannot leave it to ants, roaches or Rhesus monkeys to carry the baton trans-generationally! Leibniz in his transcendental genius distinguished the ‘passive’ from the ‘active’ but had an ingrained bias toward the epistemological giving low priority to the ontological sense-phenomenal human in his real 4d space-time existence. In our poem, the ‘passive’ becomes the invariant monad and the ‘active’ becomes the multitude of complex variants influencing the perception or distortion of the invariant truth. Unfortunately our current theorists have same bias trying to replace physical particulate matter with their contingent attributions like forces (f=ma) or spontaneous self sustained organized activities. The individualization of an invariant monadic universe gives rise to the variable ‘multiverse’ concept. This recognizes that there are competing strategies for adaptive success in a particular environment. In the anthropic universe of human mesoscopic reality this individualization usually takes the form of ‘prefab’ alternatives coexisting in attractor phase space premotor area of the brain. A freely willed conscious choice depend on humans mediate and transcendental goals on the basis of its fitness as exhaustively argued elsewhere. Because humans are the observers, actors and narrators our cognitive capacities are constrained to the very specific parameters that define human ontological and epistemological limits. This is our human story and every species follows or goes on with their subhuman ways.
Because only humans are the ‘language’ narrators of existential reality, the narrative has to be understood within the context of inherent and acquired limitations, thus we can only access the probabilities of that invariant universal monads by writing poems about Big or smaller bangs and invent a finite universe where mass, energy, momentum, etc are conserved (cosmological constant) and then hope that our measurements and logic analysis make consistent predictions. Amazingly, Leibniz’s vision in the 18th. century already predicted reciprocal information transfers at “…any distance, however great.” This includes the constant radiation piercing our atmospheric shield and entering into our phenomenological domain. to emphasize the universal interconnectedness. This becomes the basis for our model of reciprocal information transfer from transfinite sources via bark baryonic receptors in DNA/RNA neocortical sites subjected to constant transfinite radiation activity, as mentioned. Fortunately A quantum probability calculus and a general relativity theory were also invented providing for an universe with no absolute boundaries and we can always tackle infinities with no edges in sight by limiting the number of complex interacting variables participating at will taking into consideration the individualized coordinates metrics in space-time of the instrumental/human observer. Who could ask for anything more? . . .
As Leibniz elaborates further on his ‘evolution of complexity’ and finally realizes that the human monad is much more complex to explain there is noted a fundamental shift away from considering a unit-dimensional physical particle as the invariant element in a spatio-temporal progression and settles for shifting brain dynamic patterns without understanding the structure/function basics of brain architecture as most mathematical theorists do today. This biased emphasis on the epistemological is what produces the paradoxes and confusions as he tries to explain the evolution of his contrived complexity version in humans but leaving him out of the picture. It is proper for Leibniz to continuously modify his model of reality in the light of new scientific developments which excluded the structure/function details of the human brain as is common today among mathematical theorists of ‘modern’ physics who rather exclusively dream of substituting transient ‘modes’ for particulate matter involving fields, photons, phonons, electron orbitals and other attributions of physical particles without a physical substrate carrier. Good luck! We can look at the sky but with our feet resting on real solid ground. This is not to deny the importance of justifying the human monad in terms of real time, ongoing quotidian existential ends and means available but also in terms of final causes which this author emphasizes is directed at maintaining the human species survival via a continuous adjustment of his biopsychosocial (BPS) adaptive equilibrium with his changing environment because reality is in the physical brain dynamics of the beholder, no brain no reality to narrate. If the mathematical theorists leave no room for the psycho-social/psycho-physical parallel models the human race is doomed to disappear in a few generations. Watch out the ants and roaches are coming yonder….!
In this brief account on the evolution of Leibniz monads there is no room for the development of the Dirac vector model variations we have developed.. We will follow up in another discussion.

Summary and Conclusions.

More than three centuries after the mathematical genius of Leibniz made remarkable prescient projections into our ongoing reality we have pointed out how contemporary mathematical theorists continue to market the biased epistemological, metaphysical logic interpretation of existential reality. They have conveniently ignored the remarkable reinterpretation of Leibniz projections by Kant in his classic “Critique of Pure Reason”. They have ignored the strictly ontological warnings about the importance of consistent, falsifiable measurements or observation results as the proper beginning antecedent of metaphysical logic speculations on probabilities, important as they have turned out to be. They have ignored the ontological contributions of Skinnerian operant conditioning behaviorism or Feynman’s real time diagrams representations or Freudian psychology or the psycho-physical parallel approach to ontological phenomenological reality, the Penrose-Hameroff model or even Voltaire’s misguided existentialism. Why ignore it, why not team up with experienced psychotherapy practitioners? Those who have not learned the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it as Will Durant warned. Leibniz had valid excuses to de-emphasize or ignore altogether what we have learned after he died in the 18th. century about brain dynamics research and had to be biased in favor of metaphysical, mathematical logic which he knew better. There is no excuse now to continue ignoring the relevance of human brain dynamics as part and parcel of any mathematic analysis poem. Why would, otherwise privileged, mathematical minds insist on giving more importance to the red color attribution of an apple ignoring the physical particulate matter that made it possible? Why not accept the Leibniz projection that progression into an ordered structure “would not occur spontaneously from a simple bird’s nest to a cathedral” Furthermore, why should a code of human ethics and morality (as argued by Kant) should be considered irrelevant to a ‘physical dynamics’ human account of existential reality? Go figure! Will somebody out there explain to them?
References:
1) http://www.ucl.ac.uk/jonathan -edwards
2) Blog site: https://angelldls.wordpress.com/;
3) Family Domain site: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net
Dr. Angell O. de la Sierra, Esq. Early Spring 2013-04-05 Deltona, Florida

About Dr.d

See CV, family & publications at: http://delaSierra-Sheffer.net/
This entry was posted in Neurophilosophy of Consciousness and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s