This is only a problem if one believes in authoritative figures. For me, Alan Watts is a human with faults and flaws like any one of us, but he is also a very insightful individual. This is what counts in the context of philosophy. I don't judge the messenger. If it wasn't Alan Watts, would you give it more weight? That doesn't sound very robust. — punos

Well if the person who preached stuff like that ends up drinking themselves to death it does sorta poke holes in his "insights" since he clearly didn't believe it. I've read his stuff before but he gets a lot wrong because people don't know better. He's not a teacher either.

It's your job to ask the right question. It's not an excuse, it's a reason. — punos

That sounds like an excuse.

If i tried to explain it to you like a 5-year-old, you'd tell me that it's more complicated than that, and that i'm oversimplifying. Isn't that right? — punos

Well you haven't really explained it like that.

That's an individual choice, i suppose. I don't think i, or anyone else, can make you care. You've got to see it for yourself as to why you should care. Some people just don't care about anything, and some people care about too much. You already seem to at least care somewhat. — punos

Choice is an illusion. That said the onus on the one making the argument for why people should care. You can make people care, thats what words are for.

This is my own sentiment but in reverse. For me, to consider a person a static object is to consider them almost inanimate. You could burn thousands of people in an incinerator and it would be no big deal because they are static objects (as if already dead), with no process of feeling pain or suffering. I would not intentionally ever hurt anyone precisely because i know they are a process that can feel and suffer due to the processes in every one of them. — punos

Well the problem is that people don't see it like that. People are "objects" but they aren't static. I mean we are made up of things after all and those things engage in processes, hence why I said both. To consider something static isn't for it to be inanimate, and they'd still feel pain. 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.

It sounds like you're just replacing process with thing or "human being" but that's why just calling things processes is cold.

It provides the result of the subconscious brain process, but not the analysis.

Netflix has a great series about a new female attorney with autism spectrum disorder 'The Extraordinary Attorney Woo', filmed in Korea. — PoeticUniverse

What does that mean?

Also I saw the show but don't see how it related to this or what you said.

Burning flames are exothermic processes releasing energy that was stored there by another process. Why would you try to apply a human emotion to a non-human entity like fire? But if you insist, then we can talk about the slow-burning fire that is in every cell in your body, which we call metabolism. Without this inner fire, you would not be alive to feel lonely. — punos

Yeah but then what's the difference if they're both just processes? What makes one human and the other not?

Well, what i've been trying to tell you is that an individual is a process. You can't have an individual that is not a process. Even things that are not individuals are processes. — punos

Well according to that other user apparently not. Apparently we're just robots, not that I have much issue with that.

You seem to care about process philosophy, or you wouldn't be asking these questions. Why do you want to know? Nature doesn't care what you know or don't know, but it's a good idea to know what nature "cares" about. That is the point of philosophy: so that you may align yourself with it. — punos

I think nature and "Cares" don't really align, nature appears to be indifferent.

But I digress. I care just because I wanna know since some other guy I knew believed in it but when I look at it I just see treating things as events and processes as cold and heartless. Reminds me of Buddhism and "no self".

It's also kind hard to see living things as events because that just turns them into things with no "life" or "Soul" for me and so I stop caring.

It appears that you're trying to understand this from an incompatible perspective. You have certain definitions you're reluctant to refine for this purpose. You seem stuck with your initial impressions and can't yet see a way around them. It's not that you're incapable; you just haven't done it yet. Understanding this perspective doesn't automatically validate process philosophy, but it will provide you with an additional lens through which to view the world. If it truly doesn't make sense to you now, set it aside and revisit it later. Don't stress over it, and maintain your curiosity. — punos

It's more like you're not really doing a good job of explaining it. On some level I understand what it means, that since things are dynamic it makes more sense to label them as events instead of things. But on the other hand they are pretty solid and do endure, unlike events, so maybe it's somewhere in between.

I wouldn't cite Alan Watts though, the guy drank himself to death, which sorta led me to believe he didn't buy what he was selling.

You keep trying to pin the fault in understanding on the other person when it's more like your own inability to make it clear. It's not my job to make your argument. It's like Einstein would say (to paraphrase) "if you really understood something you could explain it to a 5 year old". Don't make excuses.

And obviously the next question philosophers would ask for such a ontology is "what does it mean and how does it apply to our lives and world". That's sorta the whole point of the pursuit, why does this matter and why should one care?

I'm thinking you might be taking for granted what it means to see living things as individuals versus processes. To me it harkens back to all the times humans degraded their opposition as just "monsters" or inanimate to make it easier to kill or persecute them. Pretty sure black people were regarded as less than animals and felt no pain.

So to just write humans off as just processes is cold, ice cold.

It's not needless if it helps you understand what you're trying to comprehend.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler" - Albert Einstein — punos

You realize the irony of quoting Einstein for process philosophy right?

No, the point is that it's a living (biological) process, and even if it's not alive, it's still a non-living (non-biological) process. I would put it like this: 'If everything were just static, nothing would really matter since nothing would live or die.' Alternatively, 'If everything consists of processes, then everything matters because everything lives and dies.' — punos

Well no, if it's a process then it doesn't live or die so it doesn't matter.

Can you explain what you mean when you say that processes don't feel hunger, thirst, etc.? Why do you think that? Please explain how a 'static living object' (which is a contradiction in terms) could feel hunger, thirst, etc. i, for one, care deeply because of processes, and wouldn't care at all if everything were static. I've explained my reasoning; now, please explain yours. — punos

It's like saying running can feel hunger, that burning flame gets lonely, or that packing toys can care. It's a process and therefor has no emotions or needs. If it's an individual then it does. Static and living isn't a contradiction. You haven't really explained your reasoning, you just keep insisting it is so without showing it.

Never mind that our ethics focuses on individuals not processes.

That's fine. Now, please explain how it makes sense the other way. Don't justify it based on what you care or don't care about, as that's purely subjective. Nature doesn't care about our personal preferences. — punos

Nature doesn't care about philosophy either so it's a moot point. Philosophy only matters in how it affects what we care about, whatever that may be. That's pretty much why people did it in the first place.

"Individuals do that" because it seems that way, which is the second story, but consciousness makes no referral to the brain state processes in the basement of the first storey.

We are discovering that we are as 'robots', but hate to think of it that way. — PoeticUniverse

You're not really making much sense. Also based on the evidence consciousness does make "referral" to the brain states.

Like I said, you're not making much sense. If everything is just events then they have no emotions. Thinking of ourselves as robots isn't something we hate though, that's more the materialist stance.

Therefore, you are not a static object because you can be dismantled, at which point you would cease to exist. This indicates that you were constructed at some point through a process and can be deconstructed again through another process. The reason you would cease to exist is that the process that allows you to be would be utterly disrupted. — punos

I feel like process just needlessly complicates it.

Of course it is, but you have to start somewhere. Begin with the general idea and then work your way down to the details. Based on what you've been told, explain to me what contradicts the concept of process philosophy. — punos

Well from an ethics and morality view, if stuff is just processes then it doesn't really matter since nothing lives or dies.

If your dog were merely a static object, you wouldn't need to feed it, give it water, or show it love, because it wouldn't require these things. All those actions only have meaning if your dog is a delicate living process with needs to keep that process going. This is the foundation of your ethics and morality. Static objects do not feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc.. — punos

Processes don't feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc. Only individuals do. If they're just processes then who really gives a shit?

What actually matters is how we live day to day in a high level process. We wouldn't bring up a lower level process such as "My chemical receptors are well receiving your endorphin state" instead of saying "I love you", but we might talk about a medical condition that way. — PoeticUniverse

Can you expand on that? From my view if everything is just a process then it doesn't matter what happens to "it" because there is no "it". If it's just an event then it has no feelings or emotions and cannot love or feel pain. Only individuals do that.

And honestly the more I read on this the less sense it makes:

https://www.openhorizons.org/concrescence.html

Which just goes more to the point, if the "object" is just being "made anew" again and again then ethics and morality would go out the window I would think. Why would I care about someone else if they "aren't going to be around for long". If one falls in love or makes a friend are those feelings a lie then?

Makes less and less sense each time.

A tree is a long event, as you are. Other than the permanent basis of reality, there are, strictly speaking, no 'things', although it's a handy way of identification, for the so-called 'things' are not identical with themselves over time, as just continuing on from a moment ago, although there are semblances that continue. — PoeticUniverse

I wouldn't say there are no things as such "events" are made of things and are themselves things. In some sense they are identical with themselves over time, though that depends on the organism and what you take to be "themselves". The question of identity doesn't seem to have a solution.

So to me there are still things but they change, calling them events seems...unnecessarily complicated.

Still doesn't answer my questions.

Let me put it like this. The stuff I care about: my dogs, my family, a boyfriend/husband, my hobbies, working out, my interest in computers, what does it mean for all that and more that I love? What does it mean for human relationships and morality or ethics? For sex and sexuality?

Like...what does it mean for what actually matters.

We can continue this process, examining smaller and smaller scales. Eventually, we reach a point where we encounter entities that are not made of anything smaller. We could stop there and say that these fundamental particles have always existed, with a specific number of them that cannot increase or decrease. However, we know that these particles can annihilate with their antiparticles, so it doesn't seem like they are fundamentally "things" as we initially perceive "things" to be at first sight. — punos

Not exactly from what people have told me. It's more complicated than that.

So, then what would be the difference between you dead and you alive? Don't you think there is some kind of process involved? How can one go from a state of not existing (pre-conception) to living, and back to not existing (death)? — punos

I mean there are bodily processes sure. But as for the difference between dead and alive, that's a matter of perspective.

If I were to atomize you with my ray gun, would you still exist after that? If so, then how? If not, then why not? Yes, your atoms will still exist, but will you? How can static objects account for this kind of transience? — punos

From what I gather it's complicated. If I were taken apart I'd be dead and would cease to be.

You are not ready to understand. It's not your time yet. It's okay, just keep at it. It's a process. — punos

If you don’t understand that’s fine but don’t pretend that you do.

Some articles say “from things to events” and I’m left wondering what it means to see “things” as events.

Which then brings up my earlier questions

Ah, so then what is the difference between what a dead brain does and what a living one does? If your brain stopped processing (or living), what would happen to your autism? Would it remain the same? — punos

If my brain was dead so would I because I’d be dead. A dead brain is dead, a living brain is alive.

Why are you depending so much on the understanding of others? Can you see the question in your own mind (or brain)? Can you identify what is keeping you from understanding? When you think about process philosophy and follow its mechanics, where do you feel you get stuck? That's where your question lies. Show me that question. — punos

You could just explain it to me rather than ask questions you know I can’t answer.

I can’t follow what I don’t even really understand

Does a dead brain have a mind? — punos

By definition no, but I’m doubting the existence of mind.

If you know something that i don't, i'd like to know it as well. Can you tell me, from your own understanding, what your reasoning is against the idea of process philosophy? I also asked if you knew of anything that does not undergo some form of process, something static that does not change in any way? — punos

I couldn’t say, since no one has really been able to explain it or answer my questions. As for static, I would probably use myself. I haven’t really changed in 25 years apart from my body. My autism isn’t changing either.

Also it seems to imply free will, which is a myth from what I’ve seen. He seems to imply a sort of agency that does not exist, along with panpsychism which seems to be a red flag since we can’t test that.

Like…to be blunt: what does this mean and why should one care? You haven’t answered this, just saying that it contradicts current materialist understanding, which tells me nothing. You also didn’t answer my initial questions

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. — Gnomon

You don’t really understand quantum physics enough to comment on it. You keep referring to the founders when our understanding has evolved since then.

And from your posts it sounds like you don’t understand process philosophy enough to explain it hence all the quotes. You never even got to the ethics of it, which is all I care about.

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: — Gnomon

You haven’t actually explained anything…I guess it’s easy to pretend to know than to actually know.

Like I said, I guess I’ll have to find someone else who can explain it. So far no luck.

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 — Gnomon

Mind has always been an assumption we made that doesn’t seem to have any evidence to support it.

Process philosophy rejects the doctrine of scientific materialism and substance-based metaphysics that entities can only influence each other by means of external relations. — Gnomon

I repeat, that still tells me nothing that I’m asking.

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. — Gnomon

If you’re reading materialism into my stuff that’s your hangup. I just follow the evidence and so far I haven’t really seen anything backing process philosophy, only your misunderstanding of QM.

Like…it really just reads like you don’t know or understand it, which is fine but I’m looking to understand it and get answers to my questions.

You offered nothing, just like the people in my stack exchange question. Not one person on there was able to explain it or answer my questions.

Which, again, makes me see why this philosophy sorta died out. People who claim to subscribe to it can’t apply it to reality or explain it.

Again, what current evidence is that? — flannel jesus

I think there is one about how memory is affected by damage to the brain, how psychedelics affect the brain since they are chemicals, among others.

To date there is nothing to suggest “mind” exists and it might just be a relic of the past.

Like the more people try to explain this the more I’m starting to think no one knows what the hell they’re talking about

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: — Gnomon

Ultimate reality cannot be process by definition, things still exist.

But even if I granted process that tells me nothing and if you’re not versed in his philosophy why are you commenting? All you have are snippets from google ai which tells me you don’t know anything.

Also I find it hilarious you linked the question from stack exchange that I asked where no one was able to answer me.

Materialists judged immoral acts done by the self and others more differentially. Materialists' preference for moral rules is more contingent on their self-interest. — Gnomon

I can promise that’s not it.

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

And no you mentioned nothing about ethics in this entire thread either.

So yeah, it seems like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Guess I’ll have to keep searching for someone who can answer my questions.

Eastern philosophy has not created atomic bombs and lasers. But it does allow humans to peacefully coexist with Nature* — Gnomon

Not exactly.

Quite the opposite in fact. In Eastern philosophy there is no subject or object, meaning there wouldn’t be anything to care about or preserve or help. So there wouldn’t be any coexistence, it wouldn’t matter what happens to anything else because there is nothing else. It’s pretty cold in practice.

Plus you’d just have to look at how early man hunted animals to extinction to see that is false. The only thing stopping other plants or animals from choking everything out is biology.

Recognizing everything is connected doesn’t mean harmony or compassion or love or ethics by default. You can go different ways from that. Heck Buddhism was used to justify wars and violence as well.

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. — Gnomon

This is not true and is also a reason why I don’t use google Ai, it’s often wrong.

I don't think so. I think the mind is more *what the brain does*, the processes it engages in, than just "the physical arrangment that is the brain". Of course, the physical arrangement of the brain gives rise to what it does - what it does can be derived from its physical construction. — flannel jesus

Again, current evidence would suggest you’re wrong.

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? — Gnomon

This means nothing. The philosophy stack exchange said the same. Again, I think it’s because you don’t understand the physics behind it. Even with the Nobel Prize Discovery about non local reality there is no implications because we don’t really know what it means yet or how it works.

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. — Gnomon

It doesn’t really matter what Whitehead thinks about it to be honest. Everyone has a take on science. To me it’s worked pretty well for us so far so that counts for something. I asked that question on stack exchange too and people would disagree with Whitehead.

If anything that just sounds like being bitter that science works and his philosophy doesn’t. And I’m inclined to believe that given the replies so far. More than that though it doesn’t seem like Whitehead understand what science is it that’s his take on it.

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. — Gnomon

Doesn’t really matter what the pioneers thought, they turned out to be wrong later on, especially with regards to observation and consciousness.

There are no philosophical implications to the work, only people who don’t understand it think there are. I know because I’ve asked this every time some pop sci magazine makes bold claims about what QM says.

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? — Gnomon

Doesn’t matter if it’s discussed on this forum it matters what the world at large thinks of his work and apparently it hasn’t actually taken off. Like due to no one understanding it, including you, and to failing to apply it to daily life.

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. — Gnomon

Not really. I don’t know many who regard his work well, and the apparent supporters of his philosophy are far from reliable.

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

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.

In fact you can just ignore the AI overview most of the time.

. 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.

So far my questions haven't really been answered about it.

I'm beginning to see why this philosophy never really took off.

I consider myself a physicalist, which is to say everything is either physical, or the consequence of physical events. When you mix that with Process Philosophy, you get a view of the mind where it makes sense to say "the mind isn't physical, but the mind IS the result of physical events - the mind is the consequence of physical processes". — flannel jesus

Based on current evidence you’d be wrong. The mind is physical, it’s the brain.

“You’ve touched the heart of the matter at last:
The teaching’s not meant to deny what is vast
And present before us, but free us to live
Unbound by the concepts we cling to so fast.” — PoeticUniverse

Poem is pretty much nonsense and not true but this part is definitely so.

Based on what we know today there is no being unbound by concepts.

Same this with this moment, what you experience now is based on everything before. This moment isn’t where things start.

Like I said, it’s just wrong.

But then, Quantum Mechanics came along and made a mishmash of step-by-step deterministic mechanisms at the foundations of physical reality. And Quantum Uncertainty made even the existence of subatomic particles appear probabilistically fuzzy & conceptually immaterial*3 — Gnomon

Not exactly. There is a reason the quantum stuff doesn’t really apply to the macro state so it’s not really affecting our day to day.


This is just a misunderstanding of quantum physics.

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.

A similar categorical difficulty emerges from Quantum Physics, which concluded that physical particles of Matter (quanta) are ultimately waves of Energy (processes). Again, which is more real or useful depends on your perspective*4. — Gnomon

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

"Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think" and "The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." — Gnomon

Not…really?? Also none of this answers my questions.

So I guess you don’t understand it either.

I admit it does take some stretching of the imagination, but one should expect to do so when learning new things. What part of my description do you take issue with, or is it the whole thing? — punos

More like how stuff would stop existing, it wouldn't. Stretching the imagination doesn't always mean learning new things, it could be delusion too.

So, here is where the process can go off on another tangent, away from a response which would reveal something specific. What would it matter if replies to your question didn't satisfy you? Is it that you just want to talk? See what others think? What motivated this question, other than other questions...
Is it 'turtles all the way down'? — Amity

If you don't know you don't know, I don't see the need for all that.

It's not saying that at all. It's saying that individuals are processes. You are a process. Your mind is a process. Your body is a process, or relation between organs. Your organs are a process, or relation between molecules. Molecules are a relation between atoms, and atoms a relation between protons and electrons, and protons a relation between quarks. It's possible we could go on for infinity as we continue to dig deeper. The point is that when we try to get at actual objects we are actually getting at relations between smaller objects, which are themselves relations. — Harry Hindu

But they're still objects and that's what leads us to giving a damn about anything. If it's just a process then who cares because that would mean nothing exists...

Dunning-Krugers are in full effect. :zip: — 180 Proof

That's the impression I'm getting, no one really knows what this means even the people who subscribe to it. No wonder it never took off.

Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe. — unenlightened

Doesn't seem very smart or insightful TBH. Why bother commenting if that's the response?

This video is not just a philosophical exploration; it is an invitation to reflect on how seeing the world as a series of processes can change your perspective. It encourages you to ponder your contributions to these processes and to consider what verse you will add to the grand symphony of life.

Methinks they don't fully grasp how just seeing things as processes is a bad thing. For one it would be like saying that individuals don't exist.

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/a/84439/88743

Alfred North Whitehead is a philosophical work that presents a system known as "process philosophy," arguing that reality is fundamentally a process of becoming rather than a collection of static objects, where the core concept is "creativity" as the driving force behind this ongoing process of actual entities coming into existence; it emphasizes the interconnectedness and relational nature of all things within the universe, with each "actual occasion" (moment of experience) drawing from past events and contributing to future ones, essentially viewing the world as a dynamic flow of becoming rather than a fixed state. — Gnomon

PEople often use that in a similar vein to the "no self" in Buddhism, though that idea is way more complicated.

First question: Why is it so important to you? Second, why did you give up so easily? Research is fun! — Amity

I dunno, why is anything important?

The focus on processes is rarer than the focus on stable things. But especially in light of our environmental concerns today, and the fundamental importance of understanding the intersection of biological and human processes in order to address those concerns, a focus on processes is vital. — The Basics of Process Philosophy - Reason and Meaning

It's sorta the opposite effect really, if they just reduce this stuff to processes then people stop giving a damn about them.

So far, I don't see it as 'dehumanising'. People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static. — Amity

Except from what I gather they are, I posted something about teleonomic matter which seems to say the same. We care about individuals not processes.

Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static. Everything moves, and is made of things that move, that are made of things that move, that are made of things that move. At the very bottom it's just space, or the vibrating void. If a thing were to truly stop moving, then it would simultaneously cease to exist, and it will no longer be a thing. — punos

That seems kind of a stretch.

Why do people think a unique determination is a reasonable expectation? Quine talks about the consequences, not so much causes, of failure to perceive the indeterminacy. But it seems reasonable to blame this failure on the success of language in talking about real, physical relations. Its unreasonable effectiveness, if you will. — bongo fury

Ummm, what?

Might not be relevant from a philosophical POV, but I highly recommend watching the "Death's Game" on Netflix. You will come up with answers to the questions you have mentioned by yourself. Do share your thoughts afterwards, if you decide to watch. — Ayush Jain

I don't think it's on there.

For me the point is that there is no absolute right way to think. Those who think there is an absolute right and wrong are mired in a need for authority. For me it has been important to establish a "personal take", and I don't see that as an easy or fast thing to do. It has taken me many. many years to get clear on how I personally see things, and I don't claim that my way is the only way. — Janus

That's been my experience with Buddhism. Doesn't help they tell you their truth has to be experienced, which makes me doubt that it is truth.

Many folk (and I believe I see this all the time on these forums) are desperately afraid, it seems, of relativism; it is the great bogeyman. When it comes to understanding what it means to be human, I think there are many possible ways to understand that. Relativism can be ruled out only in matter of direct empirical observation, science, mathematics and logic. That's my take, anyway. — Janus

Well I have many suspicions about it not being relative but that's neither here nor there.

Others may think you are wrong, but so what? They are just fallible humans like the rest of us. Getting it right. in my opinion, is not a matter of proving others wrong (although when others put their ideas out there then they are fair game for critique that points out the internal inconsistencies, incoherences or vagaries of their assertions). If someone's ideas are free from such problems, any disagreement will be about first principles, and I don't believe they can be rationally or empirically or any other way confirmed or disconfirmed. — Janus

Well I sorta have a problem just letting things go and I crave validation.

'What is the ultimate nature of reality?', 'What is really real?', 'What is the existence of things in themselves compared to the way they appear to us?' and so on. — Janus

I think that might be thinking way too hard about it. The way I see it science gives us a close picture of that "ultimate nature" otherwise none of this stuff would work like it does. "What is really real" used to give me anxiety until I gave it some thought and found it to be a dull question.

One would think that the people on here are well above average intelligence, but that is not necessarily a positive given that there seems to be a great capacity for cleverness to lead to idiocy, and to denigrate common sense. No wonder probably most people think philosophy is wankery, when for the most part it is.

I see a great gulf on these forums between those who are basically empirically and logically oriented in their thinking and those who are off with the fairies imagining all sorts of ludicrous crap. — Janus

To be fair the only philosophy I took seriously was stuff like ethics or morality, or as you say "how to live" because to me that's the real important stuff. Everyone's off asking "is this real" or "is that real" without stopping to ask what do you do once you have the answer.

I saw that in myself when for a while I chased "being right" above all else. I needed to know what was the truth of reality so that then I could be right and live according to what is right and...well be right. But the problem with that is I had no personal take on anything. I chased whoever I thought had the answer such as people like this:

https://johnbrodixmerrymanjr.medium.com/why-culture-is-not-reality-7cb4f0867a4d

Problem is, everyone thinks they got it and I don't know enough to call them all it. So all I got is a bunch of "rules" in my head from every person who thinks they know and no matter what I do I'm always wrong according to one of them.

Please provide the lines from the paper. Maybe I missed it. — L'éléphant

It's the paragraph at the end above the References.

It did? :chin: — Wayfarer

Yup, we can engage like this because of it along with pretty much most of what we use each day.

If iron flakes travel to a lodestone, that's the automatic action of magnetic force acting upon metal. Do the iron flakes possess a self awareness seeking to benefit itself? At this level, it's easy to surmise no self interest. At the level of autonomic components of living organisms, not so easy to surmise no self interest. — ucarr

His first paper talks about how we wouldn’t label such things as life.

Let's say there's a bio-chemical approach to selfhood. Does this gradient of bio-chemical interface with selfhood bolster the materialist concept of consciousness? — ucarr

Far as I know the materialist concept of consciousness has plenty of evidence behind it while everything else doesn’t.

So what is realism vs anti-realism? Its not as solipsistic as you think. :) One way to really see it is imagine a truck. Well, what is a truck? Its a combination of parts, which is a combination of molecules, atoms, quarks, etc. If we were using realism, we would want to know every single detail of that truck down to its atomic level. Anti-realism allows us to take higher level properties such as, "I press the pedal and it go zoom." as a 'truck'. Notice that anti-realism does not mean a labeling system that is at odds with reality. It just means constructing a notion of reality that does not necessarily involve all of the specifics.

Realism: I speak into my phone and it transmits a microwave radiation out to a cell tower which interprets it, sends it out to be captured by another phone which creates a series of electrical impulses into speakers that emulate my voice. — Philosophim

That seems like a mistaken notion of what realism is. Also that is how talking on the phone works since sound is pressure waves that our brains turn into sound. So I’m guessing that means realism is true?

But it does more than that. Yes. there is an external reality, but no, we don’t see it as it is. That surely provides scope for philosophical analysis, doesn’t it? — Wayfarer

Not really no. What I know is that science works and built the world and that there is an external reality. To the extent that we see it as it is is debatable but a moot point to me.