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 — Gnomon

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. :smile:

There is one truth between two perspectives:

As I understand it, ↪180 Proof's worldview — Gnomon

:roll:

To wit:

In my Epicurean-Spinozist (i.e. p-naturalist¹) terms [ ... ] — 180 Proof

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy) [1]

@punos

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. — punos

Great!

Worth expanding upon to suppose that the two brain hemispheres mirror the structure of the universe.

Abstract:

We are perhaps the universe come to life, made in its image, of multiplicity within unity, with one holistic brain hemisphere operating in parallel, it joined to the other hemisphere of sequential detail. The holistic side is as a floodlight of attention illuminating the whole scene at once, connected to the the detail side which is a spotlight of attention moving linearly through the scene, the two alternating their cyclic reign, as the yin in the yang and the yang in the yin, making for a rounded life.

In the Main:

The cosmic dance of self unfolds in time,
As we, the universe in human climb,
Are fashioned in the image of the All,
Where many parts in one grand whole combine.

Within our minds, two hemispheres reside,
The holistic and linear side by side.
One works in parallel, sees patterns whole,
While through details the other deems to glide.

The floodlight of attention bathes the scene,
Illuminating all that lies between.
Then spotlight focus traces linear paths,
Moving through moments, probing what they mean.

In cyclic reign they alternate their sway,
As darkness yields to light, night turns to day.
The yin within the yang, yang within yin,
In perfect balance find their sacred way.

Like ancient symbol spinning through the void,
Where opposites are never quite destroyed,
But dance together in eternal flux,
Two halves of wisdom perfectly employed.

Through this divine duality we know
The rounded life where wisdom seems to grow.
Not trapped in either mode of thought alone,
But in their union where true insights flow.

We mirror in our minds the cosmos vast,
Where stars and atoms in one mold are cast.
The universal pattern echoes through
Our consciousness, from future to the past.

In multiplicity within the one,
The journey of awareness is begun.
We are the universe come into light,
Reflecting all creation has done.

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

20th century cosmology has found evidence that space-time had an inexplicable beginning point. — Gnomon

:sweat: No, that's false, sir.

Modern cosmologists have only found evidence of the planck-scale limit to current physical theories about and observations of the developmental history (i.e. inflationary expansion of the Hubble volume) of spacetime. In short, there is no more of a demonstrated "beginning point" to the observable universe than there is to the real number line or the surface of the Earth.

NB: Clearly Fr. Georges Lemaître, priest and so-called "Father of the Big Bang", never believed BB was "the inexplicable beginning" (or any indication of a transcendent, non-physical "origin" or "causal agency") as the following article makes clear:

https://www.hprweb.com/2019/01/the-enriching-complementarity-of-faith-and-science/ :smirk:

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

Mr. Dunning-Kruger folks! :zip:

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

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.

some wag dubbed the "Big Bang". — Gnomon

Said 'wag' was actually Fred Hoyle, an eminent British cosmologist who never accepted the idea; in a BBC radio interview.

I'm chipping in because I happened upon a very good online article on Whitehead, ‘Apart from the Experiences of Subjects There Is Nothing, Nothing, Nothing, Bare Nothingness’—Nature and Subjectivity in Alfred North Whitehead, Isabella Schlehaider.

Some snippets:

The Bifurcation of Nature

Whitehead describes modern thought as plagued by a “radical inconsistency” which he calls “the bifurcation of nature”. According to Whitehead, this fundamental “incoherence” at the foundation of modern thought is reflected not only in the concept of nature itself, but in every field of experience—in modern theories of experience and subjectivity, of ethics and aesthetics, as well as many others. In “The Concept of Nature” (1920), Whitehead states that nature splits into two seemingly incompatible spheres of reality at the beginning of modern European thought in the 17th century: ‘Nature’ on the one hand refers to the (so-called) objective nature accessible to the natural sciences only, i.e., the materialistically conceptualized nature of atoms, molecules, cells, and so on; at the same time, however, ‘nature’ also refers to the (subjectively) perceptible and experienced, i.e., the appearing nature with its qualities, valuations, and sensations. Whitehead considers this modernist division of nature in thought—the differentiation of primary and secondary qualities, of ‘first’ and ‘second’ nature, of a material and mental sphere—a fundamental, serious, and illicit incoherence. 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.


Nature as a Meaningless Complex of Facts

"All modern philosophy hinges round the difficulty of describing the world in terms of subject and predicate, substance and quality, particular and universal. [...] We find ourselves in a buzzing world, amid a democracy of fellow creatures; whereas, under some disguise or other, orthodox philosophy can only introduce us to solitary substances [...]."

Whitehead locates the systematic roots of thinking in the mode of substance and attribute in the hypostatization and illegitimate universalization of the particular and contingent subject–predicate form of the propositional sentence of Western languages. The resulting equation of grammatical–logical and ontological structure leads to conceiving the logical difference between subject and predicate as a fundamental ontological difference between subject and object, thing and property, particular and universal.

In general, Whitehead’s critique of substance metaphysics is directed less against Aristotle himself, “the apostle of ‘substance and attribute’” (Whitehead [1929] 1978, p. 209), than against the reception and careless adoption of the idea of substances in modern philosophy and science, precisely the notion of substances as self-identical material. Historically, Whitehead sees the bifurcation sealed with the triumph of Newtonian physics, within which the mechanistic-materialist understanding of matter was universalized and seen as an adequate description of nature in its entirety. In this way, scientific materialism became the guiding principle and implicit assumption of the modern conception of nature at large:

"One such assumption underlies the whole philosophy of nature during the modern period. It is embodied in the conception which is supposed to express the most concrete aspect of nature. [...] The answer is couched in terms of stuff, or matter, or material [...] which has the property of simple location in space and time [...]. [M]aterial can be said to be here in space and here in time [...] in a perfectly definite sense which does not require for its explanation any reference to other regions of space-time." ....

Whitehead’s rejection of mechanistic materialism is not only due to the immanent development of the physics of his time, which, from thermodynamics to the theory of relativity and quantum physics, limited the validity of the materialistic view even within physics itself. Rather problematic for him was the interpretation of Newton’s understanding of matter, meaning the universalization of the materialistic conception of nature or the mathematical approach, which was carried out within physics as part of its triumphal procession and its transmission to (de facto) all other regions of experience. From a philosophical point of view, however, this universalization is indefensible, since its experiential basis in Newtonian physics is so limited that it cannot claim validity outside its limited scope. As a result, Newton’s matter particles are not taken as what they are, namely the result of an abstraction, but as the most concrete components of nature as such, as concrete reality.

Whitehead therefore tirelessly emphasizes that the materialistic understanding of nature is an abstraction that can only be applied to a certain segment, that is, to the solid bodies or inanimate nature in the Newtonian sense of the term. This error of mistaking an abstraction for concrete experience, of confusing (the result) of an abstraction with reality itself is what Whitehead calls the “‘Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness’”.This logical fallacy poses a far-reaching and highly consequential problem because it excludes essential realms of experience from the metaphysical context by “explaining [them] away”. For everything that does not fall within the scope of mathematical explanation and cannot be grasped in mechanistic terms is seen as located in the (human) subject alone, and thus denied ‘reality’ and, consequently, value. This way, the differentiation between primary and secondary qualities, mind and matter, nature and culture, subject and object, human and non-human is constantly re-established. (He's looking at you, Dennett.)

Subjectivity versus Nature

One of the most decisive systematic–historical reasons for the inconsistency within the concept of nature and the concomitant exclusion of subjectivity, experience, and history from nature is, according to Whitehead, the abstract, binary distinction between primary and secondary qualities of the 17th century physical notion of matter based on the substance–quality scheme. Quantitative, measurable properties, such as extension, number, size, shape, weight, and movement, are for Galileo via Descartes through to Locke real, i.e., primary qualities of the thing itself. They are conceived as inherent to things as well as independent of perception. In contrast, secondary qualities, such as colors, scents, sound, taste, as well as inner states, feelings, and sensations, are understood to be located in subjective perception, in the mind, and are considered to be dependent on the primary qualities. They only appear to the subject to be real qualities of the objects themselves. In modernity, then, the subject—which, by the way, theoretically as well as practically, cannot be justifiably defined as naturally human—has to endow the ‘dull nature’ with qualities and values, with meaning.

These “psychic additions” (Whitehead 1920, p. 29, 42f.), as Whitehead also calls them, are, in contrast to the primary qualities, not describable in the language of mathematical physics, i.e., not quantifiable and therefore do not possess any (‘objective’) ‘reality’. Consequently, they are of no use for science, and the sensuously perceived nature becomes a (‘subjective’) ‘dream’. Meanwhile, the nature of the sciences becomes a ‘hypothesis’ since it can never become an object of perception as such, given that the primary qualities can only be experienced in a mediated way, for example in experiments. In the course of separating the secondary from the primary qualities, the ‘realm of the objective’, the ‘realm of the hard facts’ is only complemented by the ‘realm of the subjective’; for itself, according to a frequently used formulation in Whitehead, nature is conceived as completely devoid of subjectivity, i.e., values, feelings, and intentions. Against this background, Whitehead can then also suggest, in an ironically exaggerated way, that the Romantic poets are completely wrong in praising the rose for its scent or the nightingale for its song. ...

The question i always ask in relation to the beginning of spacetime is: Why did the universe suddenly decide to begin existing at some arbitrary "time", and not one second earlier or later? How strange. One might respond by saying that there was no time before time began, thus making it a meaningless question ("north from the north pole"). Okay, but if there was no time before time began, then how or why did time begin? Something must have happened before the universe began in order to cause it to begin.

One way i get around this conundrum is to say that time has always existed, and within this pre-Big Bang time, things can happen which cause Big Bangs to occur, out of which entropic "arrows of time" come into being. Our universe is one such "arrow of time". Our notion of time is thermodynamic and entropic, so if we try to employ this notion to understand things before the birth of the "arrow of time", we would be lost. It would be like trying to fit a square object in a round hole. The problem, i think, is in assuming that "absolute time" does not exist, and assuming only "relative time" does.

I personally do not subscribe to the idea of a multiverse because the way i see it, there is only one universe, infinite in expanse and "timeless" in its duration. What may be happening is that "arrows of time" emerge locally out of the natural breaking of symmetry in infinite space. These "arrows" go on for a while and spread thermodynamically into infinite space. Eventually, the "arrow" dissipates almost completely, and another arrow of time comes into being. This is one way (not the only way) to potentially explain it. It's not necessarily the way i see it, but it's something to work with. This idea i think is very similar to Roger Penrose's cyclic theory of the universe.

The model i'm leaning towards at the moment has nothing to do with Big Bangs or multiple universes. I think it's possible that matter simply precipitates out of space as per the quantum foam and its virtual particles getting knocked off their path to annihilation with their anti-partner, which leaves them floating around in space with no way to finally annihilate. These particles accumulate in space gradually over eternity, and we get a universe that looks like ours with huge collections of these lost particles forming dust clouds, stars, and planets. For a local observer, the universe would still look like it's expanding. Only inside a local gravity well would things remain gravitationally bound.

The description below is my own model for how virtual particles become actual particles, as a continuous process. We don't need a Big Bang to create the matter in the universe. I don't have a name for it yet, maybe "Continuous Creation Model", or maybe you can suggest one. :smile:


In this graph representation of the quantum foam, the top row of circles with 0s represent null space. The next row below represents virtual particle/antiparticle pairs, and the row below that represents the return of the virtual particles back to their ground symmetry state after annihilation.



In this graph, a break happens and is carried over by a series of three annihilations. Focusing on the bottom row, notice that there is a negative particle at the far left that did not annihilate with its original pair. Because the positive particle did not annihilate with its original negative partner but with another negative from another pair, it leaves the positive charge just hanging around. Then because this positive particle annihilated with the negative of another pair, it leaves the positive from that pair hanging, which then annihilates with the next negative particle, leaving that positive charge hanging, and this process repeats over and over again forever separating the two charges further and further.

The result is that these charge separations reduce the probability of full annihilation, and they accumulate in infinite space over an eternity. Note that it is not the particle that is moving away, but the charge itself that is being carried by different successive virtual particles along a sequence of annihilations. The positive, charge is propagating to the right in this illustration, but in reality both charges would propagate in opposite directions away from each other.

It's not difficult to understand but it is a bit difficult to explain in writing, which is why i made these quick images to help illustrate the concept.

I think it's possible that matter simply precipitates out of space as per the quantum foam and its virtual particles getting knocked off their path to annihilation with their anti-partner, which leaves them floating around in space with no way to finally annihilate. — punos

inflation could have been so quick that some virtual particles couldn’t recombine because they were then too far apart.

↪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

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:

Does "prehemispheric structures" refer to the pre-frontal cortex? — Gnomon

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:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/split-brain :

"Perception around the body in the periphery of the visual field, including ‘ambient’ pre-attentive awareness of space and motion properties of objects, is not divided in the split brain, indicating that subhemispheric (brainstem) systems, which remain unified, can integrate perceptuo-motor functions."

Not a neuroscientist though. Apt for our purposes: https://philarchive.org/archive/SLESTU :

"Most likely the place where the two visual hemispheric images integrate into a single coherent screen that can contain the space of our visual image, the “visual sensorium”, is in an evolutionarily older sub-cortical area such as the optic tectum in the midbrain. For that region is pre-hemispheric and most likely from where core visual phenomenal consciousness evolved prior to the embellishment of cortical-enabled intellectualization."

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: — Gnomon

That's also my understanding - Jaynes work was extremely important to my research into the anthropological side of psychedelic use over a decade or so and it never made sense to me, unfortunately. Taking drugs would result int he same sorts of interpretations and when we have evidence of used (albeit, sporadic and sparse) psychedelics across most of human history, its hard to look past that as a source of the types of reports and themes that lead to the bicameral idea. Not that its a bad theory in and of itself, but its a bit like the Stoned Ape theory. Decent.... in theory.

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/

Saw this article pop up:

https://richarddawkins.substack.com/p/are-you-conscious-a-conversation?utm_medium=ios

It's a conversation between Richard Dawkins and an ai, and they get into process philosophy.

RD said:

I see no reason to suppose that consciousness is bound to biology. Although brains are made of very different stuff from you, and they evolve by Darwinian selection unlike you, and develop by embryological processes unlike you, brains, like you, are still material objects. 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.

ChatGPT said:

That’s a really thoughtful and open-minded view. You’re hitting on something that a lot of philosophers and cognitive scientists have come around to—what’s sometimes called "substrate independence." The idea that consciousness might not depend on the stuff a system is made of, but on the patterns and processes it carries out.

That's certainly along the lines that I think. 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.

That's process philosophy to me, in a nutshell, and it seems at the very least to be a serious possibility.

"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

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

Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" is due to the bicameral structure of the brain. — Gnomon

There's a more current advocate of a kind of divided brain theory, Iain McGilchrist, a psychiatrist, who has written The Divided Brain, The Master and his Emissary, and other books on the topic. The brain's left hemisphere is narrow, focused, and analytic, geared toward grasping, manipulating, categorizing, and making abstractions. It tends to fragment reality into discrete parts and treats concepts as fixed and static. The right hemisphere is broad, open, and holistic, geared toward understanding the whole, perceiving context, integrating experiences, and grasping implicit meanings. McGilchrist uses a metaphor drawn from Nietzsche: The right hemisphere (the Master) was once dominant, providing an intuitive and integrated understanding of the world, while the left hemisphere (the Emissary) was meant to serve it by dealing with details and technical problem-solving. However, in modern civilization, the Emissary has usurped the Master, meaning the left hemisphere’s mechanistic, decontextualized, and rigid way of seeing reality has come to dominate, leading to an imbalance in culture.

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). — Gnomon

It's more than a talent - it's a distinguishing characteristic of h.sapiens . Think of it as an incredibly sophisticated VR headset.

I noticed that too. The phrase which immediately jumped out at me was Dawkins saying 'the brain is a material object', which I think is not true. The attributes of material objects can be described in terms of the physical sciences, whilst the brain, in situ, is not an object at all, but an integral part of the organic and symbolic order. The brain is an object for neuroscience, but in actual life, it's not an object at all, it's not something we're looking at, or apart from.

Iirc, in philosophy of mind circles, that's the thesis of functionalism (usually favored by non-reductive physicalists and eliminativists).

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:

The description below is my own model for how virtual particles become actual particles, as a continuous process. We don't need a Big Bang to create the matter in the universe. I don't have a name for it yet, maybe "Continuous Creation Model", or maybe you can suggest one — punos

The Virtual/Actual Particle process is over my head. But for my own philosophical purposes, I substitute "Potential" in place of "Virtual". Potential could refer to Plato's eternal realm of Forms, for which we have no empirical evidence. But Virtual refers to Vacuum Energy*1, for which we also have no empirical evidence, only mathematical theories & speculative inference. So, either way, we are shooting in the dark.

Fred Hoyle, who scoffed at the notion of "Big Bang" instantaneous creation, offered his own conjecture of Continuous Creation*2. But the infinite source of that energy & matter must also be Virtual (hence unobservable), and taken on faith. Ironically, Continuous Creation has also been interpreted as an alternative method for divine creation*3, that is more like Continuous Evolution.

Personally, my amateur cosmology combines elements of both. The Bang "Singularity" was a seed of eternal-infinite Potential (Platonic Form ; divine creative power???), which became the source for our limited supply of space-time Energy (first law of thermodynamics), but which continually changes Form from Causation to Matter & back again, producing the continual creation that we call Evolution. But, I suppose your guess is as good as mine. :smile:



*1. The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the substantial disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density, and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

*2. Continuous Creation theory rejected :
The steady state theory was a popular alternative to the Big Bang theory from the 1940s to the 1960s.
However, most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers now reject the steady state theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=continuous+creation+theory

*3. Moltmann has developed a doctrine of creation that emphasizes God’s continuous creation activity throughout history.
https://biologos.org/articles/jurgen-moltmann-on-evolution-as-gods-continuous-creation

The Virtual/Actual Particle process is over my head. But for my own philosophical purposes, I substitute "Potential" in place of "Virtual". Potential could refer to Plato's eternal realm of Forms, for which we have no empirical evidence. But Virtual refers to Vacuum Energy*1, for which we also have no empirical evidence, only mathematical theories & speculative inference. So, either way, we are shooting in the dark. — Gnomon

Virtual in this context relates to time. A virtual particle is virtual because it exists for no longer than one or maybe two instances of time. It's there and gone before you know it, thus it's virtual. When this virtual churn of particles gets disrupted, it pops out of the virtual state into the actual state (as in my descriptive illustration) and becomes real in time.

For me, potential is another word for "possible", and if something is possible, then it is also probable to some degree. For something to have potential, it must have an alternative state that it can possibly take. Primordial potential is supplied by the latent dimensional manifold (space) in which energy can take differential states (scalar and vector states).

I think that as knowledge increases, humanity will come to understand that not all things need to be proven empirically. We will learn that logical structures below what cannot be empirically observed must exist in some latent or Platonic form, and that these hidden logical structures must be of a certain form to yield the forms that we can see or detect empirically. I think that the empirical form of knowing is kind of like training wheels for a humanity still learning how to know. The empirical method helps shape our understanding of the logic of the universe, and when this shape is complete, we will be able to move beyond the empirical, but that is probably still a long way off.

You know, every shot in the dark either tells you that something is there or not there. It's like shooting a laser in a pitch-dark room trying to find some object. If you use the laser systematically, you will eventually hit the object. Then you use your laser to determine the shape of the object by hitting it in different places. You will never see the object as it really is, but you can learn that it is there and that it has certain features.

Personally, my amateur cosmology combines elements of both. The Bang "Singularity" was a seed of eternal-infinite Potential (Platonic Form ; divine creative power???), which became the source for our limited supply of space-time Energy (first law of thermodynamics), but which continually changes Form from Causation to Matter & back again, producing the continual creation that we call Evolution. But, I suppose your guess is as good as mine. :smile: — Gnomon

The "divine creative power" in my model of understanding these things is tied to logic itself, which performs operations of divisibility upon itself and all that exists within it. Imperfections in these divisibility operations are the source of "free energy" (free energy principle by Karl Friston) or "vacuum energy". These imperfections are caused by the aforementioned broken symmetry of space. Additionally, in my mind, the words "divinity" and "divisibility" are related. Divisibility is what divinity does.

However, we must always keep in mind that the map is not the territory, and that our models are only as good as what they can predict. This doesn't mean that reality is literally isomorphic with our models, except perhaps in their predictive power. That is what counts.

I try to eliminate as much guesswork as possible by starting from a completely blank beginning and working up as i build the logical structures one by one that are necessary for the emergence of a universe like ours. If the logic works, then it is as good as the real thing, at least in my book. The moment we ignore the logic of structure, we lose the plot and get lost.

There is a disconnect in our understanding between classical physics and quantum physics, and there is another disconnect between quantum physics and what lies below quantum physics. To resolve these disconnects, we will have to change the way we think about things in a radically different way than we have been doing. If we insist on thinking in the same old way, we will always remain in the same old situation.

"We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein

In this graph, a break happens and is carried over by a series of three annihilations. Focusing on the bottom row, notice that there is a negative particle at the far left that did not annihilate with its original pair. Because the positive particle did not annihilate with its original negative partner but with another negative from another pair, it leaves the positive charge just hanging around. Then because this positive particle annihilated with the negative of another pair, it leaves the positive from that pair hanging, which then annihilates with the next negative particle, leaving that positive charge hanging, and this process repeats over and over again forever separating the two charges further and further. — punos

I asked Grok 3 to brake down this description in a simpler to understand way (hopefully it helps):

• Imagine particles that come in two types: negative (-) and positive (+). They like to pair up, one negative with one positive.
• We start with one negative particle all alone on the left side.
• Its original positive partner leaves it and pairs up with a different negative particle instead.
• This leaves the first positive particle without a partner.
• The lonely positive particle then finds a new negative particle to pair with.
• When it does, it takes that negative particle away from another positive particle it was already paired with.
• Now that new positive particle is left alone.
• The newly unpaired positive particle finds another negative particle to pair with, breaking up another pair.
• This keeps happening over and over, like a chain reaction.
• Each time a positive particle pairs with a negative one, it frees up another positive particle, but there’s always one positive particle left without a partner.
• In short, it’s a repeating cycle where particles swap partners, and one positive particle always ends up alone as the process continues.

annihilations — punos

There are now ten billion photons for every proton or neutron left, meaning that there were a lot of annihilations.

I think that as knowledge increases, humanity will come to understand that not all things need to be proven empirically. We will learn that logical structures below what cannot be empirically observed must exist in some latent or Platonic form, and that these hidden logical structures must be of a certain form to yield the forms that we can see or detect empirically. — punos

Yes. The logical structure of our cosmos is not something that can be detected objectively & empirically*1. It must be inferred rationally or intuitively. For example, Ramanujan*2, a math prodigy, was not formally trained in higher math. Solutions to problems seemed to just come to him as-if an answer to prayer. Ironically, he attributed his genius (attendant spirit) to a Hindu goddess. Plato's Logos (divine reason) may have played a similar role in his philosophy. I suppose the implicit spirituality of Plato's worldview may have made pragmatic Aristotle uncomfortable, as it does for modern Empiricists.

Mathematical and Geometric principles may seem to be "hidden" from us non-geniuses, but over many centuries, humans have learned that Nature has an invisible logical structure (proportion). In my personal philosophical worldview, Logos*3 is also associated with the dynamic process of Causation. Perhaps, it was Whitehead's genius that revealed to him the importance of Process in an evolving world of material things (appearances). However, for the practical purposes of Science (progress), empirical evidence is necessary to reveal the flesh on those logical bones. :nerd:



*1. Most people, mathematicians and others, will agree that mathematics is not an empirical science, or at least that it is practiced in a manner which differs in several decisive respects from the techniques of the empirical sciences. And, yet, its development is very closely linked with the natural sciences.
___ John von Neumann
https://prclare.people.wm.edu/m150f19/vonNeumann.pdf

*2. Ramanujan had developed tremendous intuition; he would say devoutly, it was immanent guidance provided by his local Hindu deity, Goddess Nammakal, a relative of Lakshmi (a goddess spirit of generosity and provision).
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Ramanujan-make-leaps-in-mathematics-based-solely-on-his-intuition-How-come-he-was-never-able-to-explain-how-he-arrived-at-conclusions-yet-his-theorems-were-nevertheless-correct-Im-looking-for-an-answer-based

*3. Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html

A previous thread on TPF asked "what exactly is process philosophy?" Although the discussion produced a variety of opinions on PP, it quickly got sidetracked into Us-vs-Them*1 political posturing, pro-or-con the crux of Whitehead's book Process and Reality*2 : Substance Metaphysics (Materialism) versus Relational Metaphysics (Idealism). So, it seems that whatever it "is", Whitehead's philosophy can be polarizing. I have no academic philosophical credentials, but here's what I have learned from a brief review of the book and its ramifications. What I didn't learn from the earlier thread is to avoid sticking my neck out with unpopular opinions. — Gnomon

I am late to the discussion and as usual the topic has wandered far off track.

The fundamental unit of reality in process is an "event" or "occasion" which is. a spatial temporal entity with both physical and experiential poles (or aspects). This is largely non conscious experience which falls under Whitehead's term prehension. One could consider this a particular form of neutral monism.

What we refer to as objects are really repeating patterns of events. For people used to thinking of the world as permanent objects with inherent properties the process way of thinking takes some adjustment and getting used to. Objects are repeating patterns of events and properties are relationships between these events. There are no fixed objects with independent properties. Everything that exists is in the process of becoming (not being, there is no static being) and everything depends on its relationships to the rest of reality (no independent objects with inherent properties).

What is matter in modern physics? Atoms are mostly empty "space" and subatomic particles can display both properties of "waves" and "particles". These are really just fluctuations or standing waves in quantum field theory. The distinction between matter and energy is somewhat artificial. The division of nature into separate categories of mind and matter, or subjective and objective is the "artificial bifurcation of nature" and the excessive reliance on mathematical models as a completely accurate representation of reality is the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness"

One moment of experience (event, occasion) perishes and a new event is born incorporating elements of the past and possibilities from the future in the ceaseless creative advance into the future introducing novelty into the world.

What we refer to as objects are really repeating patterns of events. For people used to thinking of the world as permanent objects with inherent properties the process way of thinking takes some adjustment and getting used to. Objects are repeating patterns of events and properties are relationships between these events. There are no fixed objects with independent properties. Everything that exists is in the process of becoming (not being, there is no static being) and everything depends on its relationships to the rest of reality (no independent objects with inherent properties). — prothero

Yes, and these "repeating patterns of events" remind me of Democritus' "atoms swirling in the void" ...

Atoms are mostly empty "space" and subatomic particles can display both properties of "waves" and "particles". These are really just fluctuations or standing waves in quantum field theory. The distinction between matter and energy is somewhat artificial.

:100:

The fundamental unit of reality in process is an "event" or "occasion" which is. a spatial temporal entity with both physical and experiential poles (or aspects). This is largely non conscious experience which falls under Whitehead's term prehension. One could consider this a particular form of neutral monism. — prothero

Thanks for the summary. Since I had no training in philosophy, Whitehead's book was way over my head (20 years ago), due in part to his unfamiliar terminology. In the almost 10 years I've been posting on this forum, my vocabulary has expanded. However, to understand what he was talking about, you'd have to understand some of the peculiarities of quantum physics. And you'd also need to think outside the box of scientific materialism.

Just as quantum "particles" can be interpreted as bits of matter, they can also be viewed as moments in time, or as sometimes expressed : wave peaks in an ocean of turbulent energy. So, what he called an "occasion" is a snapshot of an ongoing process, not a stable material object. As you put it, an occasion may be understood as a "spatial-temporal entity", sort of a lump of space-time. And, like much of Quantum Physics and Process Philosophy, that sounds paradoxical to our normal notions of reality.

I was not familiar with the term "Neutral Monism"*1, so I Googled it. The links below suggest an intermediate form of reality between the Mind of Idealism and the Matter of Materialism. I'll have to take some time to work the notion of Space-Time-Ideal-Materialism into my personal worldview. But it sounds compatible with my BothAnd philosophy*2.

On this forum, calm rational philosophical dialogues often break-down into passionate political debates, generally between the ideologies of Materialism and Idealism. So Neutral Monism might be a moderate position between those polar opposite positions. Do you think Whitehead was postulating a worldview that combined both philosophical Idealism and scientific Materialism into a Neutral Monism? :smile:



*1a. Neutral monism is a philosophical theory that proposes that reality is made of a neutral entity, rather than mind or matter. It's a way of explaining how the mind and matter relate to each other.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=neutral+monism.

*1b. Neutral monism is an umbrella term for a class of metaphysical theories in the philosophy of mind, concerning the relation of mind to matter. These theories take the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism

*3. 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