That's also my understanding - Jaynes work was extremely important to my research into the anthropological side of psychedelic use — AmadeusD

Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart was the intuitive right-brain genius composer who incited the jealousy of left-brain regimented Salieri. Any nominal coincidence here? :wink:

His term for this incoherence is ‘bifurcation of nature’, for the question of how these two concepts of nature—‘objective’ and ‘subjective’—relate to each other remains largely unresolved for Whitehead within the philosophical tradition of modernity. — Wayfarer

Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" a few centuries ago resulted from the maturation of the Bicameral Brain ; especially the objective language & math hemisphere. The subjective creative & feeling Right Brain has been described as the Animal Brain*1, primarily because it seems to lack the abstracting functions of the human mind. Apparently, most animals survive mainly with instinctive & intuitive thinking. But humans have developed a talent for processing abstracted concepts (ideas) that can be analyzed in more detail (logic).

Unfortunately, this modern narrow-focusing ability (reason) has evolved to the point of overshadowing the broader more Holistic aspects of brain function. Yet, I doubt that Whitehead, as a lefty mathematician, would want to lose the right brain talent for reasoning, as we seek to recover our fading natural instincts & intuitions & feelings. Modern culture has pushed Nature into the background, allowing us to mentally adapt to our man-made un-natural environment. But our bodies don't evolve quite as fast as our minds. So, we are now vulnerable to some aspects of nature that animals take in stride.

BTW. You seem to have a holistic brain. Are you left-handed, or ambidextrous?*2 :nerd:

*1. Animal Brain :
The right side of the brain is often associated with the animalistic part of the brain, which is involved in processing fear, aggression, and affection.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=right+brain+animal+mind

*2. Bifurcation of attention :
"We are the master of our hands, and by funneling this training to one hemisphere of our brains, we can become more proficient at that kind of dexterity." Natural selection likely provided an advantage that resulted in a proportion of the population -- about 10% -- favoring the opposite hand. The thing that connects the two is parallel processing, which enables us to do two things that use different parts of the brain at the same time.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/04/170419131801.htm

"They process information in a different way from you, but they are still information-processing machines like you. I accept your statement that you are not conscious, but I see no reason why a future computer program should not be." . . . . .
All of what makes us human are probably the processes of our brain and our body, and if those processes are replicated in a completely different substrate, it's completely possible that the *internal reality* of subjective experience would also be replicated therein. — flannel jesus

Thanks for that information. Since I'm not constrained by the Genesis story of Creation, I can imagine that the Process of Evolution could continue in non-biological substrates, and non-natural (artificial) systems. What matters is not the Matter, but the inter-relations and patterns of Processing : e.g. a Turing machine. I'm not as sanguine as Kurzweil that the "Singularity is Near". I'm open to that possibility of a second Genesis, but probably not in my lifetime.

I suppose that AI must have some kind of self-concept*1 in order to have a conversation like the one you linked. The AI vocabulary must include some definition of "you" and "me". Besides the nouns, a sentient AI would need a multi-dimensional kind of Information Processing (e.g. feedback loops), rather than our primitive linear digital computers. And I suppose that a self-concept is a minimum requirement for general awareness. :smile:


*1. I am a strange loop :
"I" is a consequence of the brain's ability to monitor itself, together with its computational inability to process fully detailed descriptions of itself. He connects this "strange loop" of self-reference to the notion of emergence, to Godel's famous incompleteness result and to Escher's drawings - hence his title. . . . . Hofstadter essentially equates the "I" with self, consciousness, and with soul.
https://www.jasss.org/10/3/reviews/doran.html

Brain stem structures, is my understanding - the nerve bundles prior to the hemispheres of the brain around the top of the spinal column and 'bottom' the brain. I see subhemispheric is also used: — AmadeusD

Still off-topic :

"Brain sensorium" is the term I found for a physical place to combine multi-channel (visual, olfactory, auditory, and tactile) signals into a single stream of sensation, that may eventually provoke multiple meanings : hot + ouch!. But it seems to be a primitive organ that we share with most animals. When the incoming multi-source physical sensations are not properly directed to centralized mental consciousness, the result may be Synesthesia, where the person becomes aware of Color in-place-of-or-in-addition-to Sound. But the cognitive verbal awareness seems to happen somewhere else.

Therefore individual incoming sensations and their whole-self meaning --- danger or opportunity --- remain separate, until merged into a single significance for Me, Myself, and my Soul. But where? Descartes, and other spiritual traditions, postulated the locus of that Sentient Soul (mind's eye) at the center of the brain in the Pineal Gland. But modern biology has a more mundane (melatonin) function for for that organ. Did Whitehead discuss the brain's role in doing Analytical/Reductive science versus Complementary/Holistic philosophy?

Anyway, I'm philosophically intrigued by the Split Brain notion*1, in which a person seems to function normally, even when hemispheres are dis-connected. So how are their analytical/holistic functions --- physical sensations (percepts ; feelings) and conscious awareness (concepts ; meanings) --- merged into a viable person with normal left-hand / right-hand motor control? Is there a Functional Nexus in addition to the physical inter-connection?

Apparently, when the logical Left Brain and emotional Right Brain are not integrated into a whole percept/concept package, the person may experience the world differently, but cannot accurately describe what's wrong. In some cases, the physical sensations may be experienced as non-verbal Feelings & Images, and mental words to express those feelings only come later, or with difficulty. Have you ever come across Psychedelia users who experience complex/unreal feelings that they can't put into words*2?

Could the drugs be revealing the primitive bicameral brain/mind that Jaynes was talking about? If so, then a unified brain/mind might be a recent evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to focus on both whole & part at the same time. Thus, producing a unification of five senses & a single integrated self-consciousness. But can we also voluntarily or chemically shut-down one half of the brain, while still functioning as a unique person? :nerd:


*1. Split-brain, Single Mind :
No, there is no evidence that split-brain patients have two minds. Instead, they appear to have a unified consciousness, even though the hemispheres of their brain are not communicating.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=do+split+brain+patients+have+two+minds

*2. Psychedelics induce intense modifications in the sensorium, the sense of "self," and the experience of reality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25820842/

Whitehead describes modern thought as plagued by a “radical inconsistency” which he calls “the bifurcation of nature”.

Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" is due to the bicameral structure of the brain. I assume you are familiar with Julian Jayne's theory of the Bicameral Mind, as an explanation for the ancient notion of voices-in-the-head that conveyed messages from gods. Today, we could call that "communication" Intuition, because we think the brain/mind is unitary.

However, as noted in my response to , we could infer instead that we are literally "of two minds" in some cases. Rational human technology has allowed modern cultures to create un-natural tools & habitats. Which is why, unlike primitive societies, we make a clear distinction between Nature & Culture (Shamanism & Science???). Hence, one result of that "bifurcation" is that logical scientists were able to ignore the Observer (left brain) in their objective picture of the physical world.

Until, that is, we got down to the sub-atomic foundation of reality. And discovered that our Intuitive meaning-making right-brain couldn't make sense --- translate felt-meaning into left-brain language --- of the analytical abstract Rational data it was receiving : e.g. continuous-wave vs discontinuous-particle paradoxes. So, such “radical inconsistency” might be the philosophical problem that forced Whitehead, and others in early 20th century, to adopt a holistic (left & right brain) methodology. Left-brain discovers mathematical relationships, and right-brain creates metaphorical images to make concrete sense of those abstractions.

I'll stop here, before I get my left-brain mired in woo-woo metaphysical non-sense. :joke:

↪Gnomon
My understanding is the prehemispheric structures solve this problem in humans, and make sets of data from both halves cohere in our perception. I've not looked deeply into it but found that a very interesting suggestion. — AmadeusD

Off Topic :
Does "prehemispheric structures" refer to the pre-frontal cortex? If so, they are also divided into left & right hemispheres, which leaves the coherence (unification) problem unsolved. The paired pre-frontal cortex is supposed to govern much of our conscious behavior. But since the entire cortex, including the frontal parts, is divided & dual, the question of unification remains. Obviously, the brain does somehow resolve dual physical channels into a single conceptual consciousness --- two eyes, one worldview. But how does the cerebral system create a single perspective from binary inputs?

Julian Jayne's theory of the Bicameral Mind*1 postulated that ancient people interpreted intuitive (subconscious) right brain signals as communications from invisible gods to the rational (conscious) left brain. So one way to resolve the two-brain/single-mind conundrum would be to accept that what we call Consciousness occurs only in the Left brain. AFAIK modern science does not seem to support that. Are you aware of any evidence that only one hemisphere is aware of what's going on outside? :smile:


*1. Bicameral Brain vs Single-minded consciousness :
Julian Jaynes proposed that early humans operated with a "bicameral" or two-chambered mind, with one part of the brain generating commands that another part perceived as the voice of gods.
This theory suggests that modern consciousness, characterized by introspection and self-awareness, emerged around 3,000 years ago.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/bicameralism.htm

Within our minds, two hemispheres reside,
The holistic and linear side by side. — PoeticUniverse

That raises the scientific question of how a split brain can produce an integrated worldview. Obviously if you cut the lines of communication (information sharing) the bicameral brain has difficulty navigating for a single body. :smile:

Two brain halves, one perception :
Our brain is divided into two hemispheres, which are linked through only a few connections. However, we do not seem to have a problem to create a coherent image of our environment -- our perception is not "split" in two halves. For the seamless unity of our subjective experience, information from both hemispheres needs to be efficiently integrated.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110901101430.htm

I can generally agree with Spinoza's 17th century deus sive natura, in which Nature was assumed to be eternal. But 20th century cosmology has found evidence that space-time had an inexplicable beginning point. — Gnomon

took issue with my assertion of an "inexplicable" Big Bang beginning. Of course, I was referring to a provable scientific explanation. But 180 seems to make allowances for debatable philosophical (metaphysical) conjectures, other than "god did it".

Ironically, cosmologist Stephen Hawking concluded that the "laws of physics" had a beginning 15B years ago*1. If so, on what physical basis would any pre-bang science be based? I can agree with him that humans are free to speculate into unsolved mysteries. But I wouldn't call that a valid Scientific Explication. :smile:


*1. Did spacetime have a beginning?
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. . . . .
The cosmologist, Sir Arthur Eddington, once said, 'Don't worry if your theory doesn't agree with the observations, because they are probably wrong.' But if your theory disagrees with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it is in bad trouble. In fact, the theory that the universe has existed forever is in serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. . . .
Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time
Note --- Multiverse and Many Worlds conjectures have "serious difficulty with the Second Law of Thermodynamics". But being merely metaphysical speculations, they only have to be internally consistent, with no explanation for where the Infinite Energy came from.

Hawking lecture continued :
The time scale of the universe is very long compared to that for human life. It was therefore not surprising that until recently, the universe was thought to be essentially static, and unchanging in time. On the other hand, it must have been obvious, that society is evolving in culture and technology. This indicates that the present phase of human history can not have been going for more than a few thousand years. Otherwise, we would be more advanced than we are. It was therefore natural to believe that the human race, and maybe the whole universe, had a beginning in the fairly recent past. However, many people were unhappy with the idea that the universe had a beginning, because it seemed to imply the existence of a supernatural being who created the universe. They preferred to believe that the universe, and the human race, had existed forever. Their explanation for human progress was that there had been periodic floods, or other natural disasters, which repeatedly set back the human race to a primitive state.
https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/lectures/the-beginning-of-time

I think the mystic and the rationalist are two sides of the same coin, like the left and right hemispheres of the brain, and the dichotomy between Eastern and Western modes of thought. I like to think of myself as a kind of 'logical mystic', or a "mysic of logic". The mystic tends to get a gestalt image of the whole process but misses the logical details, while the rationalist tends to focus on minute details of the whole process but misses the big picture. This is similar to the relationship between reductionism and holism; one needs both to grasp the comprehensive logical picture. We must bring to bare the whole of our minds on the whole of the mystery. There is a key, and i do believe it can be found (certain keys have already been found), but it is like a needle in a haystack. The solution might be to burn the heystack to ashes in order to reveal the key within — punos

I agree. Personally, I am much more Left Brain logical than Right Brain intuitional. On another forum I was once described as "too logical" (Spock-like). But I am aware of my emotional/intuitive deficiencies, so I try to learn from the experiences of others. Perhaps, like math-minded Whitehead, my natural analytical-reductive tendencies do not leave much room for Mystical thinking. But he seemed to see the necessity for a Holistic perspective, in order to make sense of apparent Quantum Paradoxes, such as wave-particle duality*1. Most pragmatic physicists are content to imagine that they are dealing with objective particles instead of subjective processes. But philosophers are searching for meaning instead of manipulation.

In my effort to learn about alternative ways of seeing the world, I am currently reading a book by British physicist David Peat, who was influenced by Werner Heisenberg and David Bohm to interpret quantum physics holistically*2. Peat resolved to learn about what he called "indigenous science", by making an in-depth study of American Indigens. Whose worldview is obviously more mystical than his own Western science and philosophy. As he describes their "science" it does include such mystical notions as human-like Energies & Forces that are not in the vocabulary of Western physicists. For example wooden masks are imagined to have personalities of their own. I can accept that as an as-if metaphor, rather than an as-is fact.

's own analytical-reductive inclinations (Naturalism vs Supernaturalism ; Immanent vs Transcendent) seem to cause him to interpret my openness to alternative worldviews as woo-woo Mysticism. However, I think my base philosophy is much closer to his own Spinozan "p-naturalism"*3. Except that the Big Bang beginning of space-time, and the non-quantized*4 Energy-Process foundation of Reality, have forced me, and maybe Whitehead, to look at Nature from a more Holistic-inclusive perspective. I can generally agree with Spinoza's 17th century deus sive natura, in which Nature was assumed to be eternal. But 20th century cosmology has found evidence that space-time had an inexplicable beginning point. So the intuition of ancient cosmologists allowed them to correctly reason that a process of contingencies (billiard balls) logically required a creative input of momentum (the shooter).

My "key" to a holistic understanding of both Physics and Metaphysics is what I call BothAnd philosophy*5. :smile:


*1. "Physicists ask if the nature of quantum reality lies within the elementary particles {things} themselves, or if these are not merely the material representations of something deeper . . . . Rather, they were the surface manifestations of underlying quantum processes."
Blackfoot Physics, by David Peat
Note --- I don't think this perspective is woo-woo mystical, but it is holistic and process-oriented instead of object-oriented : waves vs particles.

*2. The implicate order is a theory by physicist David Bohm that describes a deeper, interconnected reality that underlies the physical world. Bohm believed that the implicate order is the source of all that exists.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bohm+implicate+order
Note --- Taken together, the Explicit (manifest ; observed ; apparent) and Implicit (hidden, occult, inferred) perspectives provide a way to understanding Nature as a whole cosmic system, instead of just what's obvious from our local frame of reference.

*3. P-Naturalism = Pure Naturalism???
EDIT : "Pure naturalism is a philosophical theory that states that only natural forces and laws govern the universe. It's also known as ontological naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, and antisupernaturalism.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=pure+naturalism
Note --- For pragmatic scientific purposes, I can accept that metaphysical assumption. But for theoretical philosophical purposes, I tend to shy from presumptions of purity.

*4a. In quantum mechanics, a "quantum process not quantized" refers to a phenomenon where a physical quantity within a quantum system can take on any value within a continuous range, rather than being restricted to discrete, specific values (like energy levels in an atom) which is the typical characteristic of quantization; essentially, it's a process where the quantity isn't "locked" to specific steps or levels.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=quantum+processes+not+quantized
*4b. Quantum Mechanics Does NOT Mean Quantization! The Hydrogen atom, when we speak of "bound" electrons below the ionisation energy, has only a discrete set of allowed energies. But this discreteness is NOT typical of quantities in so-called "Quantum Mechanics".
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/quantum-mechanics-does-not-mean-quantization-02f1daa78760

*5. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Considering:
(non-idealist, non-telos woo woo) foundational insights from which "process philosophy" is derived. — 180 Proof — punos

FYI. As I understand it, 's worldview is Immanentist & Non-Idealist & Antitheist & Absurdist, among other metaphysical beliefs (i.e. unprovable). So any implication of intentional or theistic or teleological evolution is not just Outlandish & Alien, but also preposterous, ridiculous, unrealistic, non-sensical, stupid, and metaphysical. That's why he slyly & covertly treats the postulator as an idiot, who implicitly should be banned from posting on a Scientism forum.

Ironically, Whitehead's "foundational insights" were primarily derived from the non-classical & paradoxical implications of Quantum Physics*1*2*3*4. Which also inspired a lot of mystical New Age religious notions. But also some novel scientific offshoots, such as Systems Theory, Complexity Theory, and Statistical Mechanics, as well as some unorthodox philosophical directions such as Holism, Creative Evolution, Information Science, and Process Physics. Since the Enlightenment turn toward materialism/empiricism evolved into dogma, some pragmatists view any theoretical philosophy as woo-woo mysticism.

Although Whitehead was a remarkable mathematician, apparently he was not a hard-nosed logician, or empirical scientist. Instead, like many mathematicians --- going back to Pythagoras, Pascal, and Ramanujan --- he seemed to view the world from the open-minded perspective of an artist or mystic*5. Yet, some insist that Physics and Mathematics have no place for mysticism*6. Mysticism is not the same as revealed religion though. Instead, mystics feel that the world has aspects that are concealed from the rational mind, hence can only be known by alternative means, such as intuition. Besides, I've seen no evidence that Whitehead was a practicing mystic (extravagances & frenzies) following any traditional path, as the "woo woo" accusation implies. :smile:


*1. Philosophical Issues in Quantum Theory :
Despite its status as a core part of contemporary physics, there is no consensus among physicists or philosophers of physics on the question of what, if anything, the empirical success of quantum theory is telling us about the physical world.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-issues/

*2. Newtonian physics is unable to deal with such abstractions as energy, whereas quantum physics is able to deal with these abstractions.
https://brainly.com/question/32280009

*3. Newtonian mechanics doesn't contain matter and quantum mechanics never contains Newtonian paths without decoherence.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/242711/is-it-correct-to-say-newtonian-mechanics-is-a-subset-of-quantum-mechanics

*4. Whitehead's process theory, as outlined in his book "Process and Reality," shares significant similarities with quantum physics by viewing reality as fundamentally composed of interconnected "actual occasions" which are essentially events or processes rather than static objects, mirroring the quantum idea that matter exists as waves of probability until observed, emphasizing the dynamic and relational nature of reality at its core; this connection has led some philosophers to see Whitehead's philosophy as potentially compatible with the underlying principles of quantum mechanics.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+process+theory+based+on+quantum+physics

*5. This means that Whitehead is looking at the world not as a philosopher of science (that is, with the eyes of reason) but as an artist or a mystic.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/amerjtheophil.39.3.0005

*6. "No word in our language — not even 'Socialism'— has been employed more loosely than 'Mysticism.'" - Ralph William Inge

"Religion is to mysticism what popularization is to science". ___Henri Bergson

From the perspective of the model i'm currently working with, i believe the answer is primordial time (also known as timeless time).Primordial time is a non-physical process/substance that yields physicality. I explain this temporal logic in a little more detail below: — punos

I'm not familiar with the notion of "Primordial Time" as a "non-physical process". And I can't imagine a temporal process that does not involve physical objects : e.g. Darwinian Evolution. Our intuition of Time and Process is based on the changes we observe in the material world. But we also create Metaphors from that sensory experience to explain apparent changes in mental states over time : alterations in mood, behavior, thought patterns, and level of awareness. Can you explain "timeless time" in an example that is not an oxymoron*1?

On a possibly related topic, another thread "Underlying Reality" for Husserl*2, "J" says "that there is some thing or process – a “flow” -- that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions. This flow can be characterized using descriptions such as “texture,” “consonance,” “dissonance,” and “affordance.” This doesn't turn on a light bulb in my head. But it does remind me of Whitehead's notion of Process, which seems to mean something like the Life-path of the Cosmos, as interpreted by cogitating creatures.

As an untutored amateur who has learned most of his Philosophy from skimming this forum, I know nothing of Husserl*3. So most of the vocabulary of that thread is over my head. Do you see any parallels between your "non-physical process that yields physicality", and Husserl's "flow, that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions"? :chin:


*1. An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines two words with opposite meanings.


*2. "Underlying Reality" for Husserl
. . . . . that there is some thing or process – a “flow” -- that serves as raw material for our abstractions of ordinary objects and perceptions. This flow can be characterized using descriptions such as “texture,” “consonance,” “dissonance,” and “affordance.”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15796/underlying-reality-for-husserl

*3. "Husserl is primarily known for his analyses of intentionality, perception, temporality, embodiment, and intersubjectivity, for his rehabilitation of the lifeworld and his commitment to a form of transcendental idealism and for his criticism of reductionism, objectivism, and scientism"
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780195396577/obo-9780195396577-0210.xml

Gavin Giorbran — PoeticUniverse

“Physicists and cosmologists have long questioned whether a state of perfect
symmetry ever existed in the past, we just haven't ever considered it as a possible
future. We have been convinced instead, because we observe a measure of
randomness that the order of the universe is simply winding down. But if anything
it is winding up! Everything is enfolding together. The final state of zero
which the universe has been evolving toward since the very dawn of time is
simply the native state of the Universe. It is the timeless whole. It is truly everything
forever. And we aren’t really becoming, we are already there. The universe
we know, the past, the future, and the infinity of other universes, all exist simultaneously.
We are inside that whole. We are a part of the native state of zero,
part of the eternal present.”
― Gevin Giorbran, Everything Forever : Learning To See Timelessness

Entropy seems to be aiming at ultimate nothingness. But Zero is just the flip-side of Infinity. GG seems to be imagining deChardin's Omega Point, not as cosmic death, but a new beginning. I don't know if he's right, but he has a poetic way of expressing the physics of space & time. :smile:

The fundamental issue which makes process philosophy counterintuitive, is that we cannot properly conceptualize a process, or activity without something which is active. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's why Materialism is more intuitive for most people. And it may be why a philosophical concept like Whitehead's rational Process Theory may never become the basis of a popular religion. :chin: :brow:

While researching Process and Reality, I recently came across this article :

Why should we prefer 'process philosophy/ontology' against the traditional 'substance theory/ontology' in metaphysics? — Metaphysics of Science
https://www.reddit.com/r/PhilosophyofScience/comments/1eej0sd/why_should_we_prefer_process_philosophyontology/

This essay notes that Substances are "independent entities" defined as the "bearers of properties". But can they really be "independent" of the Universal System (physics) and of the process of Cosmic Evolution (property change)? Also, are the Properties (Qualia?) themselves also Substances, or subjective observations of mental changes due to sensory inputs? Can we separate a Property Bearer from its Properties and the observer? If so, by what criteria can we rate one or the other as Primary or Preferable? Seems like Substances and Qualia go together like birds of a common property.

One assumption of Substance Theory (Materialism) is "that change is just an appearance/illusion or if it’s real, it is entirely derivative or secondary at best". But, are "properties, relations, and events" processes or substances? Is Energy, as the cause of change, illusory? Scientists typically define Energy by what it does (change over time : processes) instead of what it is (substance). Likewise, Quantum Physics long ago gave-up on finding the ultimate particle (Atom). So they now define the ultimate something as a "field", which is simply an empty place in space where some change happens.

The article concludes with this question : "Why should we be willing to give up such a long tradition with substance theory in favour of this “newer” paradigm?" Personally, my answer is that the choice between Substance & Process theories depends on what you intend to do with it --- so to speak. Pragmatic Science will get practical here & now results from being guided by the Substance worldview. But Philosophical Speculation (investigation) may get closer to the ultimate universal Truth of Reality, by following the Process worldview to see where it leads in time & taste. :smile:

IF THE WAYWARD PATH LEADS INTO THE DARK DANGEROUS WOODS, YOU MIGHT CONSIDER TAKING AN ALTERNATIVE PATH. BUT ON WHAT BASIS WOULD YOU CHOOSE? THAT'S PHILOSOPHY.

I forgot to mention that this underlying symmetry seems to philosophically resemble the neutral substance proposed in neutral monism. I propose that this is one of the resonant connection points between physics and metaphysics, particularly with some version of neutral monism.
Perhaps a suitable name for this kind of monism could be "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" (NQPM). — punos

I had never heard of "Neutral Monism", so I Googled it. If the Monistic Entity (Singularity?) is "neither physical nor mental", what is it? Spiritual ; Essence ; Substance? Is the "Neutral Entity" G*D?

Is "Neutral Quantum Process Monism" an extant philosophical concept, or did you just make it up for this thread? Sometimes it's hard to tell if Google AI is just riffing on a theme, or finds information that is out there in the Net. The overview just refers back to "Neutral Monism". But the AI definition sounds like a Whiteheadian notion.

Again, how would you plug this neutral notion back into Process Philosophy or Process Theology?

Note : a Monistic Materialism adherent would say "you lost me at Metaphysics". But I'm philosophically-open to meta-speculation, as long as it has some grounding in empirical reality. :joke:


Neutral monism is a philosophical theory that posits that reality is made up of a neutral entity that is neither physical nor mental. It's a type of monism, which is the idea that all of existence is unified
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=neutral+monism

"Neutral Quantum Process Monism" refers to a philosophical concept that suggests the fundamental reality of the universe is a single, neutral underlying process that is best understood through the principles of quantum mechanics, where both mental and physical phenomena emerge as different aspects of this single process, rather than being separate entities
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Neutral+Quantum+Process+Monism

This perspective is based on the idea that particles like electrons and positrons are not isolated entities but rather parts of a symmetric whole that has been separated by some measure. — punos

So, when the neutral potential electron is unplugged from the whole universal system it splits into a positive & negative charge ; pro & anti-matter??? Who or what does the separating? Is the separation physical or conceptual??? How does this plugging & unplugging fit into Whitehead's Process Philosophy?

I tend to take the imaginary cosmic Whole for granted. like G*D, because my personal experience is limited to parts --- stars, planets, particles --- that I can envision plugging-together to form a Whole Cosmos. Symmetry means "to measure together". And a measurement is a mental operation. So, it's all an idea in a mind, hence Idealism? :smile:

PS___Please pardon the philosophical rambling. Maybe that's what happens when you un-plug from the system : you become an isolated part that is attracted to your counter-part, and ultimately to the super-symmetric Whole. But the journey back to the whole is what we call Life? :joke:

Since the Eternal has no input point,
It’s Everything, linear or all-at-once. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. Infinite, unbounded, undefined Potential is Everything, Everywhere, All-at-once. Simply BEING. But our matter-bound minds can only imagine All-Possibilities as things : static or linear or flowing.
BEING (G*D) is necessary, since we are here to think about it. Non-being is self-negating. :grin:

You said energy is a concept. So then matter is energy and therefore matter is a concept.
So is Whitehead interchangeable with Berkeley? — Fire Ologist

Both are considered to be idealists, but I wouldn't say they are "interchangeable", unless you want to trivialize their work as proponents of woo-woo. The link below characterizes Berkeley as a "subjective idealist", and Whitehead as "more complex", perhaps combining subjective concepts and objective percepts. For example, matter is both a tangible percept (experience) and a philosophical concept, as in Materialism.

How Matter can also be Mind may sound like woo-woo to some skeptics. And if immaterial ideas are woo-woo (can't see'em or touch'em), then this forum of sharing ideas via spooky action-at-a-distance is also mystical mumbo jumbo. :smile:


While both Whitehead and Berkeley are considered idealists, a key distinction lies in the nature of their idealism: Berkeley is considered a "subjective idealist" believing reality only exists as perceived by minds, while Whitehead's philosophy, often called "process philosophy," is more complex, suggesting that reality is composed of "actual occasions" which are essentially experiences, thus incorporating a more dynamic and interconnected view of existence, not solely dependent on a perceiving mind like Berkeley's concept.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+and+berkeley+idealism

I do not believe it can be done. . . . . You see, it appears to me that energy can exist without taking the form of a particle, but a particle cannot exist without the energy that forms it. This leads me to conclude that whatever energy is, it is a more fundamental entity than the form of the particle. It appears to be some kind of disembodied quality that is not a property of particles, but a property of space from which particles emerge. :sparkle:
Does that make any sense? — punos

Maybe. The Energy of an electron is described as "charge". Which is a metaphor for filling a wagon with a load of wood, produce, etc. That "disembodied quality", its causal value or voltage, is imagined as an inherent property of the particle, but where does the causal charge come from? One notion is that the energy "load" is extracted (particleized) from the potential of empty space (quantum field). But the response below says otherwise. Ironically, fundamental physics, dealing with invisible stuff, is mostly described in mathematical symbols or philosophical metaphors. It's all over my head, literally and figuratively. :smile:


An electron does not gain its charge from "empty space"; it inherently carries a negative charge as a fundamental property of its existence, regardless of the surrounding environment, including empty space.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=electron+charge+from+empty+space

The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. This problem forces Whitehead to employ mysterious concepts like concrescence, and prehension, which generally imply a form of panpsychism. — Metaphysician Undercover

For philosophers, it's not a problem, because they don't deal with physical "how?" questions. It is a problem for materialists, because there is a matterless gap between substantial brain and functional Mind. Mind is a process, not a thing --- unless like Descartes you point to the pineal gland as the mind generator. The "why" question is for Psychology to explain, in terms of Representation (ideas).

For most modern philosophers, the Mind/Process does not appear to be a substantial object. For example, the function of the Liver is to process blood into nutrients, and to filter-out toxins. The filtering process can be tracked down to subatomic particles, at which point the process becomes "mysterious". Yet no ghostly pan-filtering is postulated. Ironically, the verb process has a noun name : detoxification.

Whitehead was "forced" to adopt the physical notion of Concrescence (growing together) to metaphorically explain how sub-atomic wave-particles can be perceived as "substantial objects". As a philosopher, it's not his job to map the mechanical steps between probabilistic particles (lacking surfaces and substance) and macro-scale tangible objects. Even quantum scientists are forced to punt on such questions, or resort to metaphors. :smile:


This focus on concrete modes of relatedness is essential because an actual occasion is itself a coming into being of the concrete. The nature of this “concrescence,” using Whitehead’s term, is a matter of the occasion’s creatively internalizing its relatedness to the rest of the world by feeling that world, and in turn uniquely expressing its concreteness through its extensive connectedness with that world. Thus an electron in a field of forces “feels” the electrical charges acting upon it, and translates this “experience” into its own electronic modes of concreteness. Only later do we schematize these relations with the abstract algebraic and geometrical forms of physical science. For the electron, the interaction is irreducibly concrete.
https://iep.utm.edu/whitehead/
Note --- Sounds like it might make sense to someone. But for me, I'll just call it a metaphor.

These two points, both of which are interesting and worthy of more exploration, are either contradictory, or point to something magical/supernatural in the universe. If matter converts to energy and energy converts to matter (1), and energy is a concept (3), then matter converts to concept and concepts convert to matter. This needs more investigation before I could accept both. Let’s see where it goes: — Fire Ologist

The quoted words are not my opinion. You can click on the links to see the original search results. Look to the right of the screen to see links to other more technical sites on the same topic.

The interchangeability of Energy and Matter are not magic, but physics. Albert Einstein boggled minds with his E=MC^2 equation ; where E refers to causal power as in atom bombs, M (mass) is mathematical measurement of matter, and C is lightspeed : the cosmic constant. But physicists soon got used to the idea that the visible stuff of reality is ultimately a form of invisible energy.

The second Einstein quote below*1*2 implies that Photons are pure energy, but as they slow down to less than lightspeed, and expand their wavelength, they naturally, not magically, convert into particles of matter. That may sound like ancient Alchemy, but Lead is indeed a heavier form of Gold*3. Note the term "transform", meaning to change physical properties of matter.

If you are not a physicist, you don't need to concern yourself with the Energy/Matter equation. But if you are interested in accommodating modern physics into your philosophical worldview --- as Whitehead was --- a general understanding of Einstein's theories and Quantum concepts will be mandatory. What will be more mind boggling is to accept the implications of the fact that Matter is Energy, which is a mental concept. Perhaps even Mind itself, as noted in the previous post. :nerd:

*1. The most well-known quote from Einstein regarding matter and energy is: "Everything is energy and that's all there is to it.". This essentially means that matter is just a concentrated form of energy, which is encapsulated in his famous equation E=mc².
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=einstein+matter+energy+quote

*2. ___Einstein : "Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/161207-concerning-matter-we-have-been-all-wrong-what-we-have
Note --- These "quotes" on the net may be apocryphal or a paraphrase, but they sound like an appropriate interpretation of technical physics for laymen.

*3. Gold is related to lead because they are both elements on the periodic table, and historically, alchemists famously attempted to "turn lead into gold" through chemical processes, believing they could transform one element into the other, although this is scientifically impossible with traditional methods; however, in extremely controlled nuclear reactions, it is possible to create small amounts of gold from lead by altering the atomic structure through nuclear bombardment.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=gold+is+related+to+lead

Note : will argue against Process theory, because it violates his faith in metaphysical Materialism. Physical science can be interpreted to conform to that faith in the primacy of Matter, but he will present that opinion as a settled fact. For practical purposes, it doesn't matter either way. The actual world doesn't rate matter & energy for primacy. But for the impractical purposes of Philosophy it does make a difference in how you view the world : as a lump of inert things or as an evolving process. As a philosophical worldview, Physicalism is more complete, because it includes both Matter & Energy in its scope. :wink:

Form is the logical structure of an object of scrutiny, as distinguished from its material substance. — Gnomon
Good one; so, form precedes the substance of it? — PoeticUniverse

Yes. If you imagine Platonic Form as an infinite pool of potential, our substantial scrutinized reality is a definite drop dredged-up from the boundless abyss of untapped possibility. I'm sure you could write a poem riffing on that theme. :smile:

Thought experiment:
Imagine we have two boxes and a particle, say an electron. What would happen if we were to separate the electron from its rest energy? Would we be able to place an energyless particle in one box and the rest energy in the other box? — punos

Since an electron is essentially a blob of insubstantial energy (statistical potential) you can't separate its electrical properties from its energetic state --- which is a function of its relative position in a system such as an atom of iron. But, if you are a Maxwell's demon, I suppose anything is possible. What would you expect to happen if you could exorcise a particle of its soul? :wink:


Electron is Energy :
While an electron is not "pure energy" itself, it does represent a form of energy due to its position within an atom and its ability to move between different energy levels, meaning that the energy of an electron refers to its specific energy state within an atom, which can change depending on its location relative to the nucleus; essentially, electrons carry potential energy within an atom that can be released when they move between energy levels.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=electron+is+energy

So, no, I’m not trying to argue against process philosophy. I’m saying, like Heraclitus said, “the barley-drink stands, only while stirring.” I’m saying there is no need to speak of process (nor is there an ability to do so) if process is all there is to say. There’s more, or if not, there is nothing more to say. — Fire Ologist

I agree that Process alone, with no Substantial change, would be meaningless. But that's not what Whitehead, or Quantum Physics, was saying. Instead, he seemed to be making a philosophical application of the scientific evidence that tangible malleable Matter is essentially a form of invisible causal Energy*1*2. And Energy is also insubstantial, consisting only of statistical relationships, between material states (hot/cold). Hence, Energy and Causation are mental concepts*3, Ideas, not material things.

Yet, Matter seems real to us --- we see, hear, touch & taste it --- while Energy is merely an intellectual concept. We only know it by what it does, not what it is. That may be why our languages are mostly materialistic*4, with an emphasis on things instead of processes. We only use verbs when something changes. But we give material objects names, just for being there. Nevertheless, Reality consists of both Matter & Energy, both Substance & Causation, both Tangible & Conceptual, both Real & Ideal*5.

Therefore, Whitehead's worldview is essentially Idealistic (concepts vs things) instead of Materialistic. So, his book, Process and Reality, implies that Processes are what's philosophically essential, not the dumb stuff (the clay) that has no intelligible form apart from causal energetic inputs (creativity of the sculptor). Hence, without Matter/Stuff there are no things to talk about, and without Energy/Mind*6, there is "nothing more to say". But. together, Substance & Process are our Reality. :smile:


*1. Matter is Energy :
Matter takes up space, has mass and composes most of the visible universe around you. Energy, on the other hand, takes multiple forms and is essentially the force that causes things to happen in the universe. Yet both matter and energy are variations of the same thing. Each can convert into the other.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/can-we-manufacture-matter.htm

*2. Energy is Invisible :
Yes, energy itself is considered "invisible" because we cannot directly see it with our eyes; we only perceive its effects when it manifests in different forms like light, heat, or motion, which are then visible to us.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+invisible

*3. Energy is a Concept, not a Thing :
Yes, "energy" is considered a concept, meaning it's an abstract idea that describes the capacity to do work, and is not a physical object itself, but rather a property of matter that can be transferred and transformed into different forms like heat, light, or motion; it's a fundamental principle in physics used to explain various phenomena in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=energy+is+a+concept

*4. Language is Materialistic :
In most languages, nouns tend to be used more frequently than verbs; meaning, when analyzing a large corpus of text, you will typically find more noun occurrences than verb occurrences.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=language+nouns+vs+verbs+frequency#cobssid=s

*5. Materialism vs Idealism :
Alfred North Whitehead was a philosopher who rejected materialism in favor of a philosophy of organism, or process philosophy. He believed that reality is made up of processes, not material objects. Whitehead's philosophy views the world as a web of interrelated processes, rather than a collection of independent material objects.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+materialism
Note --- Even quantum particles are now described as statistical states instead of substantial matter. Yet, on the macro scale those states are interpreted by our senses as solid objects.

*6. Mind is Energy :
The idea that the mind is a form of energy is a theory that's gaining traction in neuroscience and quantum physics. It suggests that thoughts and consciousness are generated by electromagnetic fields in the brain.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=mind+is+energy

I don't see how this could solve the problem*1. Isn't it the case that information, or "EnFormAction", is itself a property of something, a system or something like that. So it doesn't really solve the problem, it defers it. You simply replace one property (energy) with another (information). This is similar to replacing the property of motion with the property of energy. In one context we would say that the thing has motion, but in another context we'd replace "motion" with "energy", and say that the thing has energy. Likewise, you now replace "the thing has energy" with "the thing has information". But you do not solve the problem of there needing to be a thing which has the said property. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Ontological problem may be insoluble, but that doesn't stop us "silly phillies" (amateur philosophers) from trying to solve the problem of existence. For most people, for most of the time, the ultimate answer to "God, the Universe, and Everything" is elliptical . . . . Brahman . . . . God . . . . Multiverse . . . . 42. So they just presumed that some unknowable physical thing or metaphysical force is out there in the dark creating worlds.

In the early 20th century, Astronomers attempted to trace causation back to its source, and their physical First Cause was a mathematically-infinite Singularity, which some wag dubbed the "Big Bang". Which again was elliptical : where did the Energy & Laws manifested in the explosive emergence of the observable elements of the universe come from? . . . . eternal God or infinite Multiverse . . . . ?

I suppose that most philosophical "problems" can be resolved by further analysis (what are its elements?) or by rational generalization (who or what caused it?). Both approaches eventually reach a point of diminishing returns. In which case we make a leap of inference across the chasm of ignorance. So, Whitehead assumed that some ultimate source of order, structure, and novelty in the world was a God of some kind, which he defined as the "actual entity". In my own little thesis, I also punt and say "G*D did it"*2. :grin:

PS___ I won't go into detail here on the Information is Energy concept that is currently being processed by cutting edge science. Here's a link to a book on that topic :
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6


*1.

The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. This problem forces Whitehead to employ mysterious concepts like concrescence, and prehension, which generally imply a form of panpsychism. — Metaphysician Undercover

Note A --- Kant defined (but did not explain) the appearance/substance problem in terms of Noumena and Phenomena. Do you have a better explanation?
Note B --- My version of Panpsychism (all mind) is it's all Information/Causation (Mind/Energy) . . . everywhere all the time. Energy is not a thing, but a process. Can you wrap your mind around that?

*2. G*D :
An ambiguous spelling of the common name for a supernatural deity. The Enformationism thesis is based upon an unprovable axiom that our world is an idea in the mind of G*D. This eternal deity is not imagined in a physical human body, but in a meta-physical mathematical form, equivalent to Logos. Other names : ALL, BEING, Creator, Enformer, MIND, Nature, Reason, Source, Programmer. The eternal Whole, of which all temporal things are a part, is not to be feared or worshiped, but appreciated like Nature.

I refer to the logically necessary and philosophically essential First & Final Cause as G*D, rather than merely "X" the Unknown, partly out of respect. That’s because the ancients were not stupid, to infer purposeful agencies, but merely shooting in the dark. We now understand the "How" of Nature much better, but not the "Why". That inscrutable agent of Intention is what I mean by G*D.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page13.html

"Energy" is a property, it is not something independent. We can speak about energy as if it is causal but we still have to account for the thing which the energy is a property of. That's why the problem is ontological. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. But, in my personal philosophical thesis, Enformationism, Energy is a property/qualia of generic Information (the power to transform, or to cause change). Again, Information (or EnFormAction as I call it) is not a material Thing, but a Process and a relationship : cause/effect. The primary property of Whitehead's Process is Causation*1.

In my thesis, a more general term for evolutionary causation is Enformy*2 (negentropy). Which again is not a thing, but a quality of the process labeled by scientists as "Thermodynamics". We humans observe the effects of the metaphorical flow of Energy, and infer an unobserved ultimate source or spring. Which philosophers may label as the Ontological Cause. Some call it "God", but Plato referred to the Source as "Logos" (reason), and Aristotle described it (a non-thing) as "The Unmoved Mover".

Yet Plato's ontological origin of Being was the mysterious potential state of "Forms"*3. Which is also the root of "Information" and "EnFormAction". Form is the logical structure of an object of scrutiny, as distinguished from its material substance. :smile:


*1. Causality :
Alfred North Whitehead, a mathematician and philosopher, believed that causality is a fundamental aspect of experience.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=a.+n.+whitehead+causation

*2. Entropy vs Enformy :
A quality of the universe modeled as a thermodynamic system. Energy always flows from Hot (high energy density) to Cold (low density) -- except when it doesn't. On rare occasions, energy lingers in a moderate state that we know as Matter, and sometimes even reveals new qualities and states of material stuff, such as Life .
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that, in a closed system, Entropy always increases until it reaches equilibrium at a temperature of absolute zero. But some glitch in that system allows stable forms to emerge that can recycle energy in the form of qualities we call Life & Mind. That glitch is what I call Enformy.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

*3. Plato's theory of forms is an ontology, or theory of being, that posits the existence of a Realm of Forms that is independent of human experience. Plato believed that the physical world is a shadow of the Realm of Forms, and that knowledge of the Forms is the only true knowledge.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+ontology

Biggest problem with Dogma is that it can't die in a democratic setting, it is required to reign in control of the masses. — DifferentiatingEgg

That phrase caught my eye, so I Googled "democratic dogma". It seems to be true that a democratic society cannot function without Truths-Facts-Principles handed-down from above. That's because the masses, as noted by Plato, are not philosophers, hence incapable of deriving Universals from Particulars. So, the flocks are motivated and influenced by the Leading Lights of their society. When those influencers go off the doctrinal deep end (MAGA), the sheep are bound to follow. :smile:

The Degradation of the Democratic Dogma :
Adams argues that democracy has been corrupted by the rise of capitalism and the concentration of power in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and corporations.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/745920.The_Degradation_of_the_Democratic_Dogma

↪Gnomon
The basic problem of process philosophy is to explain why processes, activities, appear to us as substantial objects. This problem forces Whitehead to employ mysterious concepts like concrescence, and prehension, which generally imply a form of panpsychism. — Metaphysician Undercover

A scientific resolution of such "problems" is over my untrained head. But in my own amateur thesis, the commonality between Processes (energy ; causation) and Objects (matter ; substance) is generic Information (the power to enform). I won't go off-topic on that notion in this thread, but my thesis and blog go into some detail, if you're interested in such unorthodox speculations. Basically, the post-Shannon understanding of "Information" is both Noun (objects) and Verb (processes). It's both causal Energy and sensable Concrescence.

Panpsychism has become fairly popular among modern philosophers. But I tend to agree with Whitehead's associate, Charles Hartshorne, to view the world-mind in terms of PanEnDeism. From this perspective the world-creating mind-process is both transcendent and immanent, but not in the sense of Judeo-Christian theology. :smile:

This leaves systems theory as substance based, and inadequate for understanding process philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

As systems theory is currently practiced, it is primarily substance-based. But on the fringes of systems science, Information-based*1 holistic theories are emerging. I happen to find them generally compatible with Process Philosophy. Again, that is off-topic, and would be a contentious concept for a thread of its own. :smile:


*1. What is complex systems science? :
It presents many foundational topics such as networks, scaling laws, evolution, and information theory, along with a complexity theory based on a universal statistical mechanism.
https://www.santafe.edu/what-is-complex-systems-science

I would agree with your disagreement with Newton and Aristotle in fsvor of Kant and Whitehead, although Descartes was right to say matter was extension. Matter is spirit; in fact, matter is Love. God is the mind of it all. Do you know Teilhard? — Gregory

It's not a disagreement, but a distinction between worldviews. Newton and Aristotle have their place in philosophy and science, but Whitehead was trying to show a different way of looking at the world, that might resolve some of the apparent paradoxes of the New Physics.

Teilhard deChardin and A.N. Whitehead came from different religious backgrounds, but reached similar philosophical conclusions about how the world was teleologically evolving. Apparently, "both were influenced by Bergson's temporal metaphysics", where "time is a dynamic flow in which past, present, and future are intertwined". My understanding of such notions is superficial, but I can agree with them in general. :smile:

What we call things are but the meeting place
Where different systems cross in time and space;
The dance between them is what truly lasts,
While substance slips away without a trace. — PoeticUniverse

This stanza reminds me of descriptions of Quantum Foam, where waves of energy meet and produce peaks that we interpret statistically as particles of matter (substance). But their existence is fleeting, as the local disturbances move-on and vanish without a trace. The only stability is in probability, that allows some particle partners to dance together for a period of time. :smile:

I don’t know why I bother responding when it’s evident you know nothing of which you speak. — Darkneos

Why do you bother to respond? You seem to be offended by Whitehead's ideas, as you mistakenly interpret them. in the next post says: "you're asking the wrong question". But I think it's a proper question to ask of any worldview*5, but based on erroneous assumptions.

I took the OP as a sincere attempt to obtain help in understanding the unorthodox philosophical worldview of an acknowledged genius, whose "magnum opus" is over the heads of most of us mortals. But instead of a philosophical dialog, this thread has become a political diatribe, on a work that you admitted you don't understand*1. Ironically, you portray Whitehead as an idiot who didn't understand Quantum Physics in the manner you prefer. And you have haughtily & sarcastically rejected all proffered opinions that don't match the world model that you are looking to support. Of course, Whitehead had little influence on modern Science, because his philosophy is mental (hypothetical) instead of material (pragmatic).

I don't know how you would characterize your personal worldview, but it sounds like matter-based Scientism (what you see is all there is), which would indeed be in opposition to Whitehead's process-based worldview. Your my-way-or-the-highway prejudice might be better served by posting on a Science forum. However, at least one poster on Philosophy Stack Exchange seems to share your literalistic mis-understanding of Process Philosophy*3. Pioneering sub-atomic physicists*4 were forced to describe the non-classical paradoxes of quantum physics in terms of metaphors, which those coming from a classical background may interpret literally and materially. FWIW, a human is not "just processes" (on-going life), but also a person (body & mind), worthy of ethical treatment.

If you would like to share philosophical opinions on interpretations of Whitehead's work, instead of denigrating them, I'm open to continuing this thread. But I suspect that some TPF posters have already been turned-off by the political us-vs-them antagonism. Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions. :cool:


*1. What does Process Philosophy mean exactly?
Sorry for the confusion but I guess it just highlights my lack of comprehension of the subject. I've met maybe two people who subscribe to it and seem to live regular lives, though when I asked them to explain they couldn't, which gave me doubts about it.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it

*2. Scientism is a philosophical position that claims science is the only way to obtain truth about the world. It's often used as a pejorative term to describe an exaggerated belief in the scientific method
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=scientism+philosophy

*3. I would think just seeing “things” as processes would shift the morality for folks since there wouldn’t be any reason to treat “others” well since they’re just processes. The same would go for human relationships as well. ___ Boltstorm
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it

*4. Alfred North Whitehead and Werner Heisenberg were thinkers in different fields, but their work is connected in the realm of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+and+heisenberg

*5. Whitehead's Moral Philosophy :
Belaief depicts Whitehead’s view as a self-realizational ethics which reconciles the conflict between the individual interest and the general interest by appeal to morally preferable "true self-interest."
https://www.religion-online.org/article/whiteheads-moral-philosophy/

Do you not think it’s dehumanizing because according to process philosophy humans don’t exist? Because that’s my point pretty much. — Darkneos

I'm beginning to see why Whitehead's process philosophy bothers you so much. He seems to have formulated a worldview that is closer to that of indigenous people around the world than to western science & physics. It's based on cycles & flux instead of linear time & static things.

My background was in the western traditions of both religion and science. But in my later years, I am trying to understand other ways of viewing reality. I'm currently reading a book written by a British quantum physicist, David Peat, who has studied the cultures of indigenous Americans (I'll call them Indigians instead of Indians). He says "our western minds desire to sort things out, to arrange knowledge in a logical fashion and order the world into categories. . . . it is not so much the questions themselves that are the problem, but the whole persistent desire to obtain knowledge through a particular analytical route".

He seems to find some commonalities between his sub-atomic world-model and the worldview of non-western humans. Just as quantum entities have properties of both waves and particles, human persons are both individuals and immersed in larger Holistic systems. He notes that "quantum theory stresses the irreducible link between observer and observed and the basic holism of all phenomena". That may sound like nonsense or BS to you. But it makes sense to some professional physicists --- admittedly a minority --- such as David Bohm ; whose notion of Implicate and Explicate orders of reality is not accepted in mainstream science. Probably because it is more philosophical than scientific, more holistic than analytic.

In Peat's book, he compares the two worldviews by noting that "in modern physics the essential stuff of the universe cannot be reduced to billiard-ball atoms, but exists as relationships and fluctuations at the boundary of what we call matter and energy". Also, in Whitehead's Process and Reality, he prefaces his Gifford lectures with "these lectures will be best understood by noting the following list of prevalent habits of thought, which are repudiated, in so far as concerns their influence on philosophy : 1. The distrust of speculative thought". You may consider Indigians to be ignorant savages, but Peat finds their holistic science to be compatible with his own non-mechanical, probabilistic Physics.

Apparently, your "habits of thought", and to some degree my own, make it difficult to understand the non-classical non-western holistic worldview of Quantum Physics and Indigenous peoples. Richard Feynman expressed his own "distrust of speculative thought" by advising his students to "shut-up and calculate". But this is supposed to be a Philosophy forum, in which speculative thought is de rigeur. So, if you find Whitehead's speculations to conflict with your Newtonian classical worldview, perhaps you should ignore the meaning & implications & ethics of Process philosophy, and stick to calculating abstract countable values. :wink:


Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) believed that humans are part of a fabric of reality that includes nature.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+human+existence

Whitehead's theory of human personhood is formulated within the fabric of his highly original western metaphysical vision. Rejecting the Aristotelian doctrine of substantive being, Whitehead embraced instead an ontology of becoming that sought to categorize the things of this world within a naturalistic continuum. . . . . The focus of this paper is personal selfhood and personal identity in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/PPer/PPerYong.htm

So, what is the point of 'Process Philosophy'?

What are its ethical implications? Or any other kind, for that matter? — Amity

I can't say with any authority, what Whitehead's "point" was. But my takeaway is that he was inspired by the counterintuitive-yet-provable "facts" of the New Physics of the 20th century --- that contrasted with 17th century Classical Physics --- to return the distracted philosophical focus a> from what is observed (matter), to the observer (mind), b> from local to universal, c> from mechanical steps to ultimate goals. Where Science studies *percepts* (specifics ; local ; particles), the New Philosophy will investigate *concepts* (generals ; universals ; processes). The "point" of that re-directed attention was the same as always though : basic understanding of Nature, Reality, Knowledge, and Value*1.

Our senses & intuitions are "tuned" to macro-scale Newtonian mechanics. Which is why quantum things & processes seem weird. During the 19th century, Physical Science had been very successful in allowing one species to take control of their environment. Consequently, the pragmatic victories scored by Matter-manipulating Physics & Chemistry, had put theoretical Philosophy in a bad light. And, when their former role as the captains of academia diminished in market value, philosophers began to suffer from "lab coat envy". Consequently, today, on this very forum, speculative & argumentative philosophy is often disparaged as useless, unless it can point to empirical evidence. Many TPF posters seem to have taken the attitude : if you can't beat them (science) join them (Scientism).

On the other hand, Whitehead seemed to envision, in the light of quantum physics, a new direction for Natural Philosophy. Instead of continuing the ancient quest of Atomism (the ultimate particle of matter), philosophers should now turn their attention to Wholes instead of Parts. From this new/old perspective, the Cosmos is not just a swirling mass of matter/energy, but an evolving process metaphysically moving toward some future state. Exactly what that Omega Point might be is of course unknown, but its direction can be inferred from the trajectory of its history.

Modern materialistic Science has been superbly successful in wresting control of Nature for the benefit of a few featherless big-brain bipeds. But Metaphysical Philosophy is not concerned with such practical matters. Instead, it studies intellectual questions of Meaning & Value. By contrast, Science per se is not interested in Ethics other than Utility : such as the very successful Atom bomb project, aimed at annihilating cities. So, the Ethics of Science*2 seems to be a philosophical endeavor tacked-on after the fact : as when Oppenheimer lamented, "I have become Death, destroyer of worlds".

Whitehead's philosophy can be labeled as Spiritual*3 (intellectual instead of physical) in the sense that it recognizes invisible forces & fields*4 at work in the world. But, unlike the traditional scientific notion of local cause & effect, he speculates on universal causes that control the direction of Evolution. So, whatever Ethics is associated with Process Philosophy will be global in its effects, and teleological in its aims. :nerd:

*1. Point of Philosophy vs Science :
# Science deals in evidence while philosophy deals in arguments
# Science looks for empirical knowledge and facts, while philosophy often focuses on abstract ideas and values
# Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that, but is also about normative and evaluative truths
# Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists.

*2. Ethics of Materialism :
Materialism is a philosophy that prioritizes material things over spiritual or intellectual ones. Materialistic ethics are ethical theories that are based on the idea that the only things that exist are matter, energy, and physical forces.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ethics+of+materialism
Note --- By contrast, Process Philosophy understands that whole systems also exist as the "more than" matter. The whole is more than the sum of the parts.

*3. Ethics of Spiritualism :
The ethics of spiritualism are a system of moral philosophy that considers the relationship between evolution and the existence of the human spirit after death. Spiritual ethics can also refer to the principles that guide how people use their spiritual beliefs and practices in the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ethics+of+spiritualism
Note --- Unlike theological religions, Whitehead's philosophical theology was not primarily concerned with an afterlife, but in our evolutionary adaptation to the evolving world.

*4. Quantum Fields are philosophical theories tacked-on to the new physics, when the long-sought ultimate particle remained elusive, and the inter-relationships of entanglement became undeniable.
"Quantum fields are not made of anything as far as we know. They just exist in the universe based on quantum field theory." https://www.quora.com/What-are-quantum-fields-made-of-and-when-were-they-formed

But to write it off as a process just makes it seem like it's not a human being, an entity, or a thing. It's nothing, because processes involve things but aren't things themselves. — Darkneos
Fine, so what is the fundamental static substance on which these processes run and operate? Is it like little solid balls or objects like the atoms of Democritus? — punos

seems to have a thing about Things, and dismisses Processes that are not things. I'm not sure where he's coming from, but a focus on Substance seems to be inherent in Materialism : "what it is instead of what it does". Based on my experience on this forum, the antithesis of Materialism may be Spiritualism : the obvious building blocks (Substance) of the world versus the invisible causal power (Change ; Evolution) in the real world.

Ironically, the ancient Atomists imagined the fundamental elements of reality as tiny balls of hard stuff, but they reluctantly added the non-stuff Void in order to allow Atoms to move and change form. But then the question arises : what Force holds minuscule atoms together in the macro scale objects that our senses perceive?

For Democritus, the material Atoms were viewed as more real than the Void (empty space). Yet, he didn't seem to have a concept of our modern notion of Energy or Forces, and motion was just taken for granted. So, his worldview was basically rigid, static & geometric instead of fluid, dynamic & amorphous. However, modern science has been forced to make allowances for immaterial Forces that move things around and hold them together.

Apparently Whitehead was intrigued by the importance of the non-things of the world, as exemplified in Quantum Physics. So, his focus was on Change & Causation (becoming) instead of just plain Being. I find it surprising that the OP questioned the Ethical implications of Process theory (subjectivity?), presumably as contrasted with the Ethics of Objects (objectivity). Apparently, Materialists interpret Process philosophy as a non-sensical (immaterial) religious & spiritual worldview. I can see the spiritual & theological implications*1, but I'm not aware of any practical religion based on the Process Theory.

I was inspired by this thread to dig deeper into Whitehead's philosophy, that seemed to be be compatible with my own non-religious worldview --- which was also based on the New Physics of quantum theory, plus the New Metaphysics of Information theory --- not on any particular religious tradition. I call that worldview Enformationism, as an update of both Materialism and Spiritualism, that have been scientifically outdated since the 20th century. Now I have uploaded a new post to my blog, as a brief summary of how Process and Reality compares with Enformationism. If you can find the time to read and review the two-page essay*2, I'd appreciate any constructive criticism you can offer. :smile:


*1. "Process and Reality" is a philosophical work by Alfred North Whitehead that explores the concept of reality as a dynamic, interconnected web of "actual occasions" where everything is constantly becoming, essentially presenting a spiritual perspective that views the universe as a process rather than a static structure; this is often referred to as "process philosophy" or "philosophy of organism."
___ Google A.I. Overview

*2. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
"Alfred North Whitehead’s book, Process and Reality, is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific essay. But it challenges the philosophical implications of Darwin’s mechanistic theory of Evolution. Instead of a simple series of energy exchanges, the Cosmos functions as a holistic organism. Hence, the eventual emergence of subordinate living creatures should not be surprising."
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

Probably true, but i would need to really understand where you're coming from to make any headway. Although its not my job to make you care, and i don't care if you care or not. I'm simply entertaining myself. — punos

may be just playing dumb, in order to troll forum posters who are dumb enough to take the bait : "I don't understand, and you're not smart enough to explain it to me".

Apparently, the "it" is some arcane ethical wisdom in Process and Reality. But I didn't take-away any particular ethical principle from the book, other than to be open to change in a dynamic world. He seems to be looking for a Process guru --- which I am not --- to reveal some abstruse Truth. It shouldn't take a genius to know that our world evolves, both physically and ethically. The Golden Rule never changes, but the evolving nature/culture does.

I did find this thread to be "entertaining", in the sense that it gave me incentive to get deeper into Process Philosophy, and to understand how it applies to my own personal worldview : where I'm coming from. Dark's dumb act just led me deeper into the rabbit-hole of a Reality that won't stand still for me to catch it. Like the Red Queen, you have to run faster & faster to avoid falling behind. :smile:


Process philosophy ethics is a school of thought that emphasizes the importance of change and becoming over permanence and being. It suggests that ethics and morality should be situational and adaptive, and that harmony can be achieved through evolving relationships
___Google A.I. Overview

So once again you don’t or rather can’t answer my questions. Seems like no one actually understands this enough to answer me. — Darkneos

That's pretty sad. I suppose living in a dimly-lit world explains your choice of screen-name.

I'm sorry you didn't get any enlightenment out of this thread. But after this review, I now think I understand much better Whitehead's philosophical interpretation of the unorthodox New Physics. Process Philosophy is amenable to my personal worldview, but obviously not to yours. You can lead a horse to quantum philosophy, but you can't understand it for him.

Since my immaterial mind was already open to the possibility of a combination of Quantum Physics and Metaphysics, I've enjoyed this one-sided dialog. Despite the frequent razzberries --- which I ignore as a sign of childish incomprehension --- this new outlook has brightened my day. :razz:


Process philosophy rejects the doctrine of scientific materialism and substance-based metaphysics that entities can only influence each other by means of external relations.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/d13195p

PS___ Understanding anything new & different requires an open mind. But if you don't believe in a metaphysical Mind, you might take the metaphor of an open-mind literally, so it takes a jack-hammer to bounce new ideas off your skull. :cool:



PPS___ If it was not obvious, I've been using your original incredulous post as a quote to further my own end of understanding Process Philosophy. Not to answer your covert materialist put-down of metaphysical philosophy. I've had many dialogs similar to this, and they all end as they began, with the Materialist claiming victory over the ignorant Mentalist. :smile:

You also never answered my original questions about it from my first post. All this you’ve posted is just noise. — Darkneos

Actually, although I am not an expert on Whitehead's philosophy, I did give you the same answer that the Physics Stack Exchange offered : the ultimate reality is Process not Substance*1. If your worldview is based on Materialism, that won't make sense. I also discussed some of the Ethical Implications of his theory. Yet again, the ethics of Materialism*2 would consider anything immaterial as just so much noise. :wink:

*1. What does Process Philosophy mean exactly and the ethical implications of it?
"Process philosophy has as its fundamental ontological entity the process, not the substance. Hence process philosophy attempts to explain and to understand the phenomena from their interaction, their dynamics and their changing, not from an idealized static state."
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/121885/what-does-process-philosophy-mean-exactly-and-the-ethical-implications-of-it

*2. Materialism Ethics :
Materialists judged immoral acts done by the self and others more differentially. Materialists' preference for moral rules is more contingent on their self-interest.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656622000812
Note --- This definition sounds like Trump ethics : he who dies with the most gold, wins.

↪Gnomon
gotta say your sources of Quora and google AI is a red flag. They don’t really understand it enough, physics stack exchange is a good one. It’s where I learned they are real and not in a probability sense. — Darkneos

Just as I suspected, from your line of questioning, you are more interested in Physics than Philosophy. I assume that the Physics Stack Exchange would give you more satisfactory feedback, that agrees with your orthodox belief system. However, the Philosophy Stack Exchange might give you a different perspective*1. But why bother with philosophy, when it only asks stupid questions and never produces anything useful : i.e. physical? :joke:


*1. What does Whitehead mean by calling science anti-rational?
In Science and the Modern World, Whitehead writes:
Science has never shaken off the impress of its origin in the historical revolt of the later renaissance. It has remained predominantly an anti-rationalistic movement, based upon a naive faith. What reasoning it has wanted it has borrowed from mathematics which is a surviving relic of Greek rationalism, following the deductive method. Science repudiates philosophy. In other words, it has never cared to justify its faith or to explain its meanings; and has remained blandly indifferent to its refutation by Hume.
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/36955/what-does-whitehead-mean-by-calling-science-anti-rational?rq=1

. Werner Heisenberg : “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
Note --- What we conceive is not necessarily what we perceive. — Gnomon
allegedly. Though QM has come a long way since his time and turn out it doesn't agree with eastern philosophy. — Darkneos

Allegedly! On what basis do you assert that Quantum physics does not agree with Eastern metaphysics?*1 Obviously, Eastern philosophy has not created atomic bombs and lasers. But it does allow humans to peacefully coexist with Nature*2. Physical Science is certainly superior to Philosophical Reasoning, for giving humans power over Nature. But Philosophy is intended to give us control over Human Nature which is interconnected with Nature on all levels. :smile:

*1. While both quantum physics and Eastern philosophy explore fundamental questions about reality, the key difference lies in their approach: quantum physics uses scientific experimentation to understand the physical world at the subatomic level, while Eastern philosophy primarily focuses on spiritual and metaphysical concepts through introspection and meditation, often presenting a view of reality that is interconnected and non-dualistic, which some see as aligning with certain aspects of quantum mechanics.
___Google A.I. Overview

*2. Non-Duality and Interconnectedness: Eastern philosophies emphasize the non-dual nature of reality, suggesting that everything is interconnected and part of a unified whole. Quantum physics, with its principles of entanglement and non-locality, also suggests an interconnectedness at the fundamental level of reality.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/interconnection-between-eastern-philosophies-quantum/

Apparently, the philosophical implications of this revolutionary New Science created perplexities that jolted his old viewpoint and informed his new worldview. — Gnomon
Based on what the physicists told me there are no philosophical implications, just people who don’t understand it saying there are. — Darkneos

So your unnamed "physicist" is saying that the pioneers of quantum physics didn't understand the philosophical implications of statistical (versus deterministic) quantum mechanics. Bohr, Planck, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, etc, all used philosophical metaphors in their attempts to make sense of the non-classical results of their experiments. That Quantum Theory works is not disputed. But what it means, in terms of philosophical worldview*1, remains open to question a century later.

For example, Einstein debated Bohr hoping to prove that Bohr's interpretation of quantum events was wrong. History records that Bohr was vindicated*2. Whitehead's Process Philosophy*3 was an attempt to create a new non-classical worldview that would take into account the Statistical Uncertainty and Indeterminate Mechanics of the New Physics, which eventually became the most validated scientific theory*4, despite it's unorthodox philosophical implications.

Apparently your understanding of quantum physics is closer to Einstein's. But Whitehead was also a certified genius. His "understanding" had little effect on the practical science of physics, but his philosophical interpretation is still discussed on this forum. Is pragmatic Science more important to you than theoretical Philosophy? If so, why do you waste time posting on a philosophy forum? :nerd:

*1. The Copenhagen interpretationis a collection of views about the meaning of quantum mechanics,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

*2. Quantum Philosophy Debate :
Einstein and Niels Bohr began disputing Quantum Theory at the prestigious 1927 Solvay Conference, attended by top physicists of the day. By most accounts of this public debate, Bohr was the victor.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/einstein/legacy/quantum-theory

*3. Quantum process philosophyis a philosophical approach that combines process philosophy with quantum mechanics. It views the world as a collection of processes that are constantly changing, rather than a collection of static objects.
Quantum mechanics challenges traditional ideas of time and causality. For example, it describes scenarios that make it difficult to understand how cause and effect work at the quantum level.
Quantum process philosophy can be used to describe consciousness, which is a complex phenomenon that is difficult to explain using traditional scientific methods.
___Google A.I. Overview :

*4. Quantum Physics isn't as weird as you think. It's weirder.
It is one of the best-tested theories of physics, and we use it all the time. On the face of it, however, the quantum realm is extraordinary: Within it, quantum objects can be “in two places at once”; they can move through barriers; and share a connection no matter how far apart they are.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/quantum-physics-isnt-as-weird-as-you-think-its-weirder/

That’s a common misunderstanding on quantum physics and not actually what it says. Particles are real. — Darkneos

That assertion depends on how you define "real". If your interest is in statistical mathematical predictions, picturing the wave crests of a quantum field as billiard balls will work. But if you define material objects in terms of definite location & mass, those mathematical particles seem to be more like waves of energy.

Note that in the description below, "to consider" means "to imagine" an object to have a specified quality that is useful in a specific context. Events (processes) in the quantum field do have measurable effects on the macro level. And if you like to visualize those invisible events as little spherical particles, the math will still work. But billiard balls and cannon balls are "real" in a different sense. :smile:

Quantum particles are considered "real" in the sense that they are the fundamental building blocks of matter, as described by quantum mechanics, and their existence is confirmed by numerous experiments which accurately predict their behavior and interactions, even though their properties like superposition and entanglement may seem counterintuitive to our everyday experience at larger scales
___Google A.I. Overview

Are Quantum Particles Real? :
It depends how you define “real”. If you define reality as what is “really” macroscopically observable, than particles are real. Quantum Field Theory cannot predict the “value” of an observable quantity except probabilistically. Just like with “normal” Quantum Mechanics pure “quantum” is not describing reality. . . . .
Talking about particles is a way to talk about fields but in different terms.
https://www.quora.com/Are-particles-actually-real-or-is-everything-ultimately-just-composed-of-fields