“On Whitehead’s account, a tree has feelings – but they are probably quite different from the feelings that human beings have. A tree may well feel assaulted, for instance; we know that trees (and other plants) release pheromones when insects start eating their leaves. These emissions both act as a chemical attack on the predator, and warn other trees (or, indeed, other parts of the same tree) to take defensive measures as well. It is not ridiculous, therefore, to claim that a tree has feelings. However, it is unlikely that a tree would ever feel insulted or humiliated – these are human feelings that have no place in the life of trees. — prothero

I agree. It's understandable that some will construe the term "feelings" in the same sense as human emotions, associated with verbal meanings. Panpsychism is often interpreted to mean that even atoms are little minds --- or tune into the cosmic Mind --- hence talk to each other and share feelings. This is hard to accept scientifically, except in the sense that atoms do exchange bits of energy that have physical effects, remotely similar to human sensations.

So, to avoid portraying atoms as sentient creatures*1, I prefer to use the term "Information"*2, in its little-known post-Shannon usage as a form of Energy*3. The "meaning" of incoming information requires a self-concept. And even plants, as living organisms, require an immune system that can distinguish Self from Other --- but in physical codes, not mental concepts.

As I understand it, plants do indeed respond to changes in their environment by "detecting" differences --- hot or cold, light or dark, useful or toxic --- as either positive or negative for life (organic) processes. They then encode DNA preprogrammed chemical agents (immune system) into their vascular productions to either make use of the new inputs or to reject them. Some of that immune response (chemicals) may filter out into the environment (communicate via air or underground) and cause nearby plants to "experience" similar effects. The important distinction is that the "immune language"*4 is primarily chemical, instead of conceptual.

Unfortunately, it's hard to describe the parallels between sentient humans, and semi-sentient plants, and insentient atoms, without using common human expressions. So, my alternative is to replace the language of Panpsychism with the language of Informationism. By analogy with Energy,
generic Information consists primarily of distinctions (differences) such as Hot vs Cold in thermodynamics, and Good vs Bad in human language, or dots vs dashes in Morse code, and 1 vs 0 in computer code. . . . . :smile:


*1. Atom-smashing is murder. :joke:

*2. Information :
Knowledge and the ability to know. Technically, it's the ratio of order to disorder, of positive to negative, of knowledge to ignorance. It's measured in degrees of uncertainty. Those ratios are also called "differences". So Gregory Bateson* defined Information as "the difference that makes a difference". The latter distinction refers to "value" or "meaning". Babbage called his prototype computer a "difference engine". Difference is the cause or agent of Change. In Physics it’s called "Thermodynamics" or "Energy". In Sociology it’s called "Conflict".
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

*3. Information is Energy :
Definition of a physically based concept of information
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-658-40862-6

*4. "Immune language" refers to the way immune cells communicate with each other and with the nucleus of a cell to trigger a defense response. This communication uses signaling codons, or words, that are similar to how electrical signals create words on a telephone
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/05/210512164017.htm

I fully endorse that phrase of his, 'outside subjectivity nothing whatever', but I interpret its meaning differently. I don't mean that there is some invisible meta-mind - like Berkeley's God - holding everything in existence. What that means to me, is that outside the constructive activities of mind, there can be no conception of anything whatever. So that even though, in the empirical sense, we can picture and analyse the world prior to the arrival of h.sapiens, even that activity is in an obvious sense, still mind-dependent, in that it relies on perspective and measurement. What the world is outside of or apart from that is an empty question. (More in keeping with Buddhist philosophy, which is a kind of moderated realism. — Wayfarer

Hume said we know nothing except what sense impressions tell us, a philosophy variously termed skepticism or strict empiricism and which leads easily to forms of solipsism. Kant was likewise skeptical of ever knowing the thing in itself (noumena) versus sense impression (phenomena). Kant did at least attribute space and time and maybe causality as innate categories of mind.

Suffice it to say, although Whitehead had great admiration for Hume and Kant as well as Descartes, but he felt they set Western Philosophy upon an unfortunate path.One which leads directly to the “bifurcation of nature” with the subjective/objective and mind/matter dichotomy. Whitehead implies we interact with nature in other ways and have forms of knowledge that come to us from outside of “the sense perception theory of knowledge”. We know things through the “perception in the mode of causal efficiency” and the continuity of the past and the possibilities of the future through “prehension” a form of non conscious experience. I can only point the interested in the right direction, I can’t fairly summarize here.
A lot comes from the notion of the fundamental unit of reality as “actual occasions, events or moments of experience). In order for nature to flow from the past (with continuity), to the present (incorporating possibilities) from the future and giving rise to creativity and novelty a certain form of subjective non conscious awareness is required hence “prehension”.

Kant did at least attribute space and time and maybe causality as innate categories of mind. — prothero

Yes, as his 'answer to Hume'. As I said, I'm an admirer of Whitehead, at least of what I know of him, but I'm a bit uneasy about the panpsychist element, that's all.

A lot comes from the notion of the fundamental unit of reality as “actual occasions, events or moments of experience). — prothero

So they are already there, as fundamental, in the past, present, and future?

I thought I saw you refer to the iron block or frozen universe, where the past the present and the future already exist and time is just an illusion. That would not be Whiteheads view of nature. For Whitehead the future is open. There is a real of possibility (think eternal objections somewhat akin to Platonic forms). Except for Plato our world is a shadow or illusion for Whitehead eternal objects are potentials which are actually deficient (mere potentials) and must become actualities through the process of nature.

Perhaps I don't understand your point of view, but you seem to talk about a universal field of subjectivity sometimes and so Panpsychism does not seem like such a leap. Especially the Whitehead kind of unconscious experience (non sensory). Primitive mentality (subjective) which is universal and on which all higher forms of cognition are composed.

Unfortunately, it's hard to describe the parallels between sentient humans, and semi-sentient plants, and insentient atoms, without using common human expressions. So, my alternative is to replace the language of Panpsychism with the language of Informationism. By analogy with Energy,
generic Information consists primarily of distinctions (differences) such as Hot vs Cold in thermodynamics, and Good vs Bad in human language, or dots vs dashes in Morse code, and 1 vs 0 in computer code. . — Gnomon

Similar concepts, I think, employing different language. Whitehead who was quite familiar with the physics of his time ( a mathematician and logician before his philosophy era) purposely used such language as feeling to indicate that mind did not just appear in a universe largely devoid of any kind of precursor in nature. It is hard to see how in a barren universe devoid of any form of subjective experience it could arise

You may reject such a notion but only because of your definition of experience as requiring consciousness or at least self awareness. — prothero

I'll be honest: your conception is entirely incoherent to me. I cannot find a way to have it make sense in any practical way. It seems a side-step or macguffin type re-definition of the word 'experience' into (literally) non-experience, by something which is unaware. I cannot bring myself to accept this, i'm afraid. I take all your points about language, but unless you're telling me there is no way to criticise language use, I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to put across. It just seems contradictory (or, at least, a total and utter, patent cop-out). Nothing personal in that at all.

Subjective experience by its very nature is beyond the realm of measurement, quantification or direct observation. — prothero

But it is, by definition and logical necessity, an experience by a subject. If one is not aware, this is not possible. So again, I take your point, but unless you wholesale reject the concept if 'error' here, I can't see it holding any water.

that such speculations do not deny or ignore whatever scientific information or data are available. — prothero

This is fair, but I think exactly the same problem as you have with language. At these fringey, ambiguous, speculative edges of thinking(or working?) we do not have solid, inarguable scientific knowledge. So, again, while that's fair, I think its an overextension to say that this applies to science, and not language (as we currently use it). It would be extremely hard for the average person to even understanding "experience" without a conscious subject to have the experience.

These are all opinions stated as facts which I am sure i do as well. — prothero

I take it then, that you feel there is no matter of fact for these issues. IF that's the case, why are we having the discussion? Again, not personal. That just seems a dim waaste of time.

Consciousness in the broader sense comprises the entire framework within which knowledge is obtained in the first place. — Wayfarer

I am sorry - this comes across as new age fluff. Can you be a bit more precise? We're getting into an area where claims are floating off into the ether, not even attached to coherent language.

It is hard to see how in a barren universe devoid of any form of subjective experience it could arise — prothero

Its also extremely hard to see from whence it could arise, in a "consciously dead" universe. "levels of consciousness" does not explain the sudden arising of subjective experience (which, by any cut, is an off/on type of change. You can't be "semi-aware" in any sense relevant to what we're discussing).

Suffice it to say, although Whitehead had great admiration for Hume and Kant as well as Descartes, but he felt they set Western Philosophy upon an unfortunate path.One which leads directly to the “bifurcation of nature” with the subjective/objective and mind/matter dichotomy. Whitehead implies we interact with nature in other ways and have forms of knowledge that come to us from outside of “the sense perception theory of knowledge”. — prothero

In my own monistic worldview, I resolve the philosophical splitting of Nature, into Matter (substance) vs Mind (subjectivity)*1, by tracing physical Energy and metaphysical Mind back to a single source, hence a Unification. A century ago, Physical Scientists (astronomers & cosmologists) discovered that our complex universe is expanding from a singular point of space-time eons ago. But they were not able to explain where the causal energy & material substance originated, to impart momentum to the near-infinite mass of matter, moving at a fraction of lightspeed outward from that point of beginning. Some people refer to that Cosmic Cause as "God", others as more-of-the-same-stuff-forever "Multiverse".

Since we now know that Matter is merely a form of Energy (E=MC^2), we can infer that the Singularity consisted only of a primitive form of Causation. Moreover, we have learned only recently that the Information*2 (knowledge) associated with Minds may also be directly related to the Causal Force that we also refer to as physical Energy*3. Consequently, we can legitimately conjecture that the process we call Mind may be a recently-evolved form of the First Cause, colloquially known as the "Big Bang", or religiously as "Creation".

The details of how that original distinction-between-something-and-nothing (creation) evolved into objective Brains with subjective Minds, is as yet unknown. But we now have enough information to infer that the traditional "mind/matter dichotomy" is merely a conceptual categorization of the various Forms of fundamental creative Causation. So, we are now able to get "outside" of sense perception by the use of rational conception. :smile:


*1. "The bifurcation of nature is the separation of reality into two realms: one that is scientific and objective, and one that is perceived and subjective. This separation is a fallacy that can make it difficult to answer philosophical questions"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bifurcation+of+nature

*2. "Research into the relation between Energy and Information goes back many years, but the era of precise yet general quantification of Information began only with Claude E. Shannon's 1948 paper . . . ." https://www.jstor.org/stable/24923125
Note --- Shannon defined "Information" in terms of Entropy, which is basically spent Energy. Erwin Schrödinger introduced the term "Negentropy" in his 1944 book What Is Life?. Hence, he associated positive Energy with Life. And the process of Life is a necessary precursor for the process of Mind.

*3. "A recent conjecture, called the mass-energy-information equivalence principle, proposed that information is equivalent to mass and energy and exists as a separate state of matter. In other words, stored information has mass and can be converted into energy, . . . ."
https://pubs.aip.org/aip/sci/article/2022/9/091111/2849001/A-proposed-experimental-test-for-the-mass-energy

This seems all an argument trying to say I don't understand language. I was trying to avoid that.
I noticed you did not respond to my questions which were an effort to discern your point of view about mind and consciousness. So it won't be a discussion unless you put something forward other than disputes about the various uses of experience, try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. These are not ideas tha I made up, but from the literature on process philosophy in which you may or may not have any interest?

Where in the chain of nature do you speculate mind begins or ends?
The same for consciousness?
Let's work with just those few terms at the moment, since the other terms may result in language
disputes.

The details of how that original distinction-between-something-and-nothing (creation) evolved into objective Brains with subjective Minds, is as yet unknown. But we now have enough information to infer that the traditional "mind/matter dichotomy" is merely a conceptual categorization of the various Forms of fundamental creative Causation. So, we are now able to get "outside" of sense perception by the use of rational conception. :smile: — Gnomon

It seems we are both monists of various persuasions and reject dualism. I think our conceptions and language for our positions may make it difficult to find common ground or terminology..
Do you entertain the notion of panpsychism?
Are you familiar with the basic elements of process philosophy?
I am not a professional philosopher and have just sketchy outlines of the fundamental tenets of some of the more well known philosophers.
For some reason I was taken with process philosophy and with Alfred North Whitehead and his thoughts and writings so I primarily try to present and promote them in the forum.
I don’t like to argue, I won’t trade insults and think that the purpose of discussion is to just try to understand each other's point of view, no winners, no losers, just respectful exchange.
We perceive nothing except through a chain of causal efficacy (photons, retinas, optic nerve, occipital lobe, etc) and so causal efficacy is a given in sensory perception, It the most fundamental and most widespread form of perception.

The details of how that original distinction-between-something-and-nothing (creation) evolved into objective Brains with subjective Minds, is as yet unknown. — Gnomon

We wonder about the implementation of mind and consciousness, and, while interesting, that is only about the nature of the messenger, the implementation; however, there is the message that the messenger brings to us.

The potential for what we have now had to be there in the beginning.

there is the message that the messenger brings to us. — PoeticUniverse

Doesn't the messenger also construct the message? The messenger is the message.

Doesn't the messenger also construct the message? The messenger is the message. — ENOAH

The messenger carries the message, such as an mp3 player is a messenger implementation that conveys the message of music.

It seems we are both monists of various persuasions and reject dualism. I think our conceptions and language for our positions may make it difficult to find common ground or terminology..
Do you entertain the notion of panpsychism?
Are you familiar with the basic elements of process philosophy?
I am not a professional philosopher and have just sketchy outlines of the fundamental tenets of some of the more well known philosophers. — prothero

Yes, my worldview is Monistic, but not Materialistic. It's based on concepts from Quantum Physics (energy) and Information Theory (mind stuff). So I have developed a peculiar vocabulary to express novel notions derived from the assumption that everything in the world is a form of Generic (begetting) Information (power to enform and transform). Hence, the essential substance of reality is a derivative of Plato's eternal Form (infinite potential) imagined in space-time as Cosmic Causation.

Like , my more-or-less Idealistic (all mind) worldview is similar to Panpsychism (all conscious), but I do have a few nits to pick. Specifically, I reserve the term "Consciousness" for homo sapiens, who are late bloomers in evolution. In its place, I use "Information" in a sense similar to Einstein's Energy which is able to transform into a plethora of physical & metaphysical conformations, such as Matter and Mind. Rather than spend a lot of time differentiating my personal view from traditional Idealism or Panpsychism, I simply gave it a new name : Enformationism*1.

I read Process and Reality over 20 years ago, when I had no philosophical background to help me understand it. Now, after about 10 years on this forum, I have a better com-prehension of Whitehead's worldview, which was also a philosophical interpretation of Quantum {field} Physics, which has replaced Classical {materialistic & mechanical} Physics as the fundamental explanation of how reality works.

I too, am an amateur (sketchy) philosopher, with no formal training. So my informal idiosyncratic argumentation may sound odd to those with an academic background. :smile:

PS___ Any relation to Stephen R. Prothero?
PPS___ I don't categorically "reject" Dualism , because it is a useful concept in the physical sciences. However, for philosophical purposes, I do go beyond the proximate appearance of two substances (mind & matter) in search of the ultimate essence of reality : Information.


*1. Enformationism :
A philosophical worldview or belief system grounded on the 20th century discovery that Information, rather than Matter, is the fundamental substance of everything in the universe. It is intended to be the 21st century successor to ancient Materialism {and Panpsychism}. An Update from Bronze Age to Information Age. It's a Theory of Everything that covers, not just matter & energy, but also Life & Mind & Love.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

Whitehead implies we interact with nature in other ways and have forms of knowledge that come to us from outside of “the sense perception theory of knowledge”. — prothero

Back when I read Process and Reality, I didn't com-prehend much of the non-standard vocabulary coined to express his novel & non-standard ideas : such as "prehension"*1. 20 years later, after writing my own personal worldview thesis --- with incomprehensible coinages of my own --- I'm beginning to make some sense of his unusual understanding of Reality.

In my personal worldview, there was no comprehension of concepts in the universe until homo sapiens emerged around 300,000 years ago. As scientists have described that era, several species of homo began to walk out of Africa on two legs toting large brains on top of their spinal communication channels. Those bicameral brains with wrap-around cognitive cortex seem to be the laboratories of language, where occasional experiences are categorized into classes & concepts, and stored for later use in similar situations.

I am not aware of any divine revelations of knowledge by channels other than the physical senses. But that incoming information is a form of Energy (causation), which is transformed by brain functions into Meaning (cognition). I can't detail the cerebral mechanism for that transformation, but it seems to boil down to digital relationships & mathematical ratios : (1/0 ; +/-). Anyway, in my theory, it's all Information all the way down.

I'm not familiar with Whitehead's numinous notion of knowledge that is obtained by means "outside" of sense perception : Presentational & Conceptual Immediacy*2. Can you explain it to me? Does it involve Intuition, as mentioned in the "Bicameral Brain" discussion in this thread? :smile:



*1. Prehension :
an interaction of a subject with an event or entity which involves perception but not necessarily cognition.
___Oxford Dictionary
Note ---
Prehension = to grasp by sensory perception ; perhaps by interaction
Comprehension = to know with cognition by conception : symbolic idea creation

Whitehead :
"He suggested that human experience involves two distinct modes of direct perception of the external world: presentational immediacy and conceptual immediacy"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+knowledge+outside+sense+perception

From the Pinocchio Theory
Whitehead on Causality and Perception by Steven Shaviro
Not too long maybe 15 pages, I find Shaviro to be an unusually clear and perceptive author about Whitehead and several others as well
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274

We wonder about the implementation of mind and consciousness, and, while interesting, that is only about the nature of the messenger, the implementation; however, there is the message that the messenger brings to us.
The potential for what we have now had to be there in the beginning. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. That's the point of my Enformationism ontology. It accepts Plato's conjecture of ideal eternal Form*1, which I also posit as infinite Potential (all power). One physical form of Potential in space-time is Energy, the process of Causation, by which all things, including Minds, are enformed.

Some imagine that timeless Power Source as a god-like Demiurge (artisan), but Plato seemed to deliberately describe it in functional (such as "First Cause") rather than anthro-morphic terms. Since we have no direct evidence of anything prior to the cosmic-explosion-of-all-real-forms (Big Bang), I think philosophers (non-theologians) would do well to follow Plato's lead.

Whatever the "messenger" is, the message is written in the form of Causation, and the meaning takes the form of conceptual Information. In the Information Age*2, I think it's appropriate to think of the process of Evolution as a computer program, and the "messenger" as a Programmer. That software & hardware engineer may not have a physical Brain, but it must have a Mind of some kind. :smile:

Note --- a computer program is an ideal (mathematical) form of the final output. Like all equations, the ultimate solution is potentially in the idealized program, which computes the actual output (final form ; reality) line-by-line. For example, in physical Evolution, the pre-bang Singularity contained (in mathematical form) everything (information ; data) needed to produce the cosmic process we call a universe. :nerd:

*1. Form :
Plato's ontology posits a reality beyond our physical world, the "Realm of Forms," containing perfect, eternal, and unchanging concepts or ideals, which are more real than the imperfect, changing objects we perceive
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=plato+forms+ontology

*2. Information Age : the modern age regarded as a time in which information has become a commodity that is quickly and widely disseminated and easily available especially through the use of computer technology.
Merriam-Webster dictionary

From the Pinocchio Theory
Whitehead on Causality and Perception by Steven Shaviro
Not too long maybe 15 pages, I find Shaviro to be an unusually clear and perceptive author about Whitehead and several others as well
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274 — prothero

Human sense-perception, limited in many ways*1, is inherently incomplete. And there's always the danger of deliberate fake news. So deep thinkers have always sought to get their (perfect, ideal) information directly from the horse's (god's) mouth. I feel their pain, but how do we arrange to obtain that complete and untainted information? Does prayer help? To which god?

Or do we have to rely on hunches & intuition*2? Which merely bypass the conscious rational channels in order to access "past knowledge" obtained in the usual manner, by means of sensory organs. Did Whitehead believe in extra-sensory perception*3? Based on what evidence?

Plato's imaginary ideal-reality, hidden behind the illusions of the cave, is a nice metaphor. But how can we really release the shackles of sense perception that are obscured by ignorance and emotional coloration? I understand Plato to be recommending logical empirical Science as an antidote to religious myths & dogmas. Not extrasensory perception. :wink:


*1. Whitehead on Causality and Perception :
Western philosophy in general is so preoccupied with the question of error, because it is deeply concerned with the unreliability of immediate experience – or of the body and the senses. From Plato’s allegory of the cave, through Descartes’ radical doubt about the evidence provided by his physical organs, right on up to Thomas Metzinger’s claim that experience is nothing but an internal, virtual-reality simulation, philosophers have been haunted by the idea that sense perception is delusional – and that, as a result, our beliefs about the world might well be radically wrong.
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274

*2. Intuition works by the brain rapidly comparing current experiences to stored patterns from past experiences, essentially acting as a pattern-matching system that generates a quick, often unconscious "gut feeling" about a situation, without needing conscious reasoning; this "knowing" is based on accumulated knowledge and past learning, allowing for instinctive decisions based on similar situations encountered before
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+does+intuition+work

*3. Extrasensory perception (ESP) is the idea that people can perceive the world beyond their five senses. It's also known as a sixth sense or cryptaesthesia.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=extra-sensory+perception

Gnomon --- "Did Whitehead believe in extra-sensory perception*3? Based on what evidence?"

In an attempt to answer my own question, I have started reading ANW's The Concept of Nature
https://brocku.ca/MeadProject/Whitehead/Whitehead_1920/White1_02.html

The lecture goes on for several pages, so these excerpts are only from a few early paragraphs. As I get time, I'll read further. But for now, would you agree that Whitehead's "means outside of sense perception" does not refer to ESP (telepathy ; clairvoyance)? If so, then to what "means" does it relate : rational inference? :smile:

# "Namely, there are some attributes of the matter which we do perceive. These are the primary qualities, and there are other things which we perceive, such as colours, which are not attributes of matter, but are perceived by us as if they were such attributes. These are the secondary qualities of matter."
Note --- Qualia are inferences from incoming sensory percepts. The term "as-if" implies that secondary attributes (qualia) are not in the material object, but in the observer. The term "attribute" implies that the observer imputes qualities to matter that are not actually properties of matter, but of the reasoning (inferring) mind. So, the Qualia are concepts, not percepts.
Apparently, light energy waves & frequencies are codes that the brain decodes as "secondary qualities" such as color. if so, then the "means outside of matter" are conceptual inferences not perceptual actualities. Hence, the brains of living organisms are designed by evolution to "read" the codes embedded in energy as information useful to an organic creature.

# "Berkeley's polemic against matter was based on this confusion introduced by the transmission theory of light. He advocated, rightly as I think, the abandonment of the doctrine of matter in its present form. He had however nothing to put in its place except a theory of the relation of finite minds to the divine mind.
But we are endeavouring in these lectures to limit ourselves to nature itself and not to travel beyond entities which are disclosed in sense-awareness.
Note --- No recourse to super-natural sources of knowledge

# "What then is the general character of that something of which we are aware? We do not ask about the percipient or about the process, but about the perceived."
Note --- IOW, we tend to think in terms of physical (material) not metaphysical (mind)

# "For us the red glow of the sunset should be as much part of nature as are the molecules and electric waves by which men of science would explain the phenomenon. It is for natural philosophy to analyse how these various elements of nature are connected."
Note --- Matter is one “element of nature”, but Mind is also a direct descendant from the origin of space-time. Hence, both elements are "inter-connected" parts of the whole system of Nature.

# "The theory of psychic additions would treat the greenness as a psychic addition furnished by the perceiving mind, and would leave to nature merely the molecules and the radiant energy which influence the mind towards that perception. My argument is that this dragging in of the mind as making additions of its own to the thing posited for knowledge by sense-awareness is merely a way of shirking the problem of natural philosophy."
Note --- Again, no recourse to magical extrasensory perception. And yet, you could interpret Rational Inference as a sixth sense. That would make sense in my Enformationism worldview, in which all matter & energies are encoded with information conducive to Evolution.

PS___ Unfortunately, the notion of Encoded Energies may sound spooky and supernatural. It's true that some psychics & spiritualists use such terms to describe communications "outside" of normal natural channels. But that's not what I'm talking about. Instead, it's merely a way to describe how the human mind can "see" color in the wavelengths of light, by interpreting encoded frequencies into the mental qualia we "know" as color, even though the light energy itself has no inherent color. The code (patterns of information) may be essentially mathematical ratios, such as the Fibonacci sequence that encodes for spiraling forms in plants and rocks.

Yes. That's the point of my Enformationism ontology. It accepts Plato's conjecture of ideal eternal Form*1, which I also posit as infinite Potential (all power). — Gnomon

The Eternal knows no point where it begins,
No gateway through which any design slips in;
Thus must it be the All-in-All that flows
As line by line or where all lines are twins.

What has no start must stretch through every way,
Through linear paths where moments mark their sway,
Or simultaneous in timeless dance—
For how else could the Boundless choose to play?

When entry points are nowhere to be found,
All possibilities must there abound:
As flowing stream, the instant’s flash of light,
The sequence, or the circle’s endless round.

Without a threshold where its being starts,
The Eternal must embrace all cosmic parts—
As time’s long river flowing ever on,
Or instant’s unity where difference parts.

Imagine Form as boundless ocean deep,
Where all potential does its secrets keep;
Our measured world, a single droplet drawn
From depths where countless possibilities sleep.

This scrutinized reality we know
Is but one pattern that the Forms bestow—
A crystal lifted from infinite seas
Of what could be, what might yet come to flow.

The abyss of Forms holds every dream untold,
Each possible shape that matter might unfold;
While we perceive one manifestation clear,
The endless pool holds mysteries yet to mold.

From vastness of the possible sublime,
We dredge one moment’s substance out of time;
Yet still beneath our certainties there swirls
The infinite from which all forms may climb.

So it won't be a discussion unless you put something forward other than disputes about the various uses of experience, try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. — prothero

I'm still not clear about Whitehead's distinction of "Prehension" from "Comprehension". Some definitions refer to "experiencing of past events", but that sounds like mundane Remembering (re-cognize) : secondary experience as a re-called-Idea-from-memory instead of a Real thing (original occasion).

So why coin the term "prehension" by omitting the "com", which in combination with reaching & grabbing would imply "grip together", as a whole instead of scattered pieces. Some of the definitions*1 I've seen seem to be referring to the ability to mentally grasp itemized Parts as elements of Whole*2 systems. Is that similar to your understanding? :smile:

*1. A "prehension" is basically the relation between actual entities, or the interconnectedness between all physical things, that determine their particular nature.
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e7zq9z/what_did_alfred_whitehead_mean_by_prehension/

*2. Holism ; Holon :
Philosophically, a whole system is a collection of parts (holons) that possesses novel properties not found in the parts. That something extra is an Emergent quality that was latent (unmanifest) in the parts. For example, when atoms of hydrogen & oxygen gases combine in a specific ratio, the molecule has properties of water, such as wetness, that are not found in the gases. A Holon is something that is simultaneously a whole and a part — A system of entangled things that has a function in a hierarchy of systems.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page11.html

COM-PREHENSION = grasping together = unity, wholeness


PS___Jan Smuts was writing his book on Holism in evolution around the same time that Whitehead was writing his Process philosophy. So ANW may not have had "holism" in his vocabulary.

Human sense-perception, limited in many ways*1, is inherently incomplete. Does prayer help? To which god? — Gnomon

Human perception is limited. Humans can perceive only a limited range of wavelengths as color, and vibration frequencies as sound, Dogs have a much better sense of smell. Other creatures have better color vision,say the mantis shrimp. What all perception shares is that there is a direct chain of causality which allows perception to occur at all. Human vision involves photons passing through the cornea striking (rods and cones) in the retina, generating an electrical impulse, passing through the optic nerve to the occipital lobes in the brain. This chain of causality is part of what Whitehead calls “perception in the mode of causal efficacy”. We hear with our ears, see with our eyes, etc. We could not see colors or hear sounds without this underlying chain of causality. This implies both the reality of an external world and the causal nature of the world. Whitehead is a hard core realist. There is no room for solipsism severe skepticism, , pure idealism or for that matter dualism in Whitehead. There is some talk about God in Whitehead but the basic tenets do not require it. For Whitehead God is the source of “eternal objects’, somewhat akin to Platonic forms but actually deficient (potentials only).
God is not about morality but about the creative advance of nature, novelty and higher forms of experience (aesthetic not moral).

Or do we have to rely on hunches & intuition*2? Which merely Gbypass the conscious rational channels in order to access "past knowledge" obtained in the usual manner, by means of sensory organs. Did Whitehead believe in extra-sensory perception*3? Based on what evidence? — Gnomon

Whitehead was a logician and mathematician so he did not (to my knowledge) believe in ESP in the usual sense.

1. Whitehead on Causality and Perception :
Western philosophy in general is so preoccupied with the question of error, because it is deeply concerned with the unreliability of immediate experience – or of the body and the senses. From Plato’s allegory of the cave, through Descartes’ radical doubt about the evidence provided by his physical organs, right on up to Thomas Metzinger’s claim that experience is nothing but an internal, virtual-reality simulation, philosophers have been haunted by the idea that sense perception is delusional – and that, as a result, our beliefs about the world might well be radically wrong.
http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=1274 — Gnomon

I don't know if you read the whole article but in Whitehead's view, Descartes dualism, Hume's Skepticism and Kant's transcendental idealism set Western Philosophy on a path from which it has yet to recover. There is nothing in Whitehead which is completely counter to modern science now or then. It is the reductionist, deterministic, mechanistic view of nature which Whitehead rejects. The division of the world into mind vs matter, subjective vs objective, the “artificial bifurcation of nature”. The warmth of the sun, the red glow of the sunset, the smell of the rose (all our experience) is as much a part of nature as the photons and infrared with which science tries to explain the phenomena. It is all part of nature Locke’s division of primary and secondary qualities is an artificial division. The task of philosophy, is to produce concepts which help to explain all of our knowledge and experience of the world. Such speculative philosophies are subject to constant revision, flights of adventure of the mind but which must also be founded in our knowledge and experience of the world. Leave nothing out, the strict materialist and eliminativists wish to explain away that which does not fit their preexisting metaphysical view of the world. Mind does not arise from a nature which is largely devoid of type of experience from the beginning.

For Whitehead God is the source of “eternal objects’, somewhat akin to Platonic forms but actually deficient (potentials only). — prothero

That is similar to my notion of G*D : creator of our physical environment (Nature), but not meddling in day to day events. This is like a Programmer, who establishes the goal and the program, but allows the process (evolution) to play-out according to the rules of the program. :smile:

Whitehead was a logician and mathematician so he did not (to my knowledge) believe in ESP in the usual sense. — prothero

I assumed that he was not talking about magical Extrasensory Perception, but I'm still grasping at an understanding of "knowledge that is obtained by means 'outside' of sense perception"*1. Perhaps you can explain the distinction between "presentational" and "conceptual" immediacy, and what that has to do with obtaining knowledge. My post above replaced those terms with Perception (physical) and Conception (metaphysical). My guess is that the latter refers to Reasoning from received Information inputs to inferred Insights & Principles as Knowledge outputs. Does that sound like something Whitehead might mean? :nerd:

*1. Whitehead :
"He suggested that human experience involves two distinct modes of direct perception of the external world: presentational immediacy and conceptual immediacy"
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... perception

There is nothing in Whitehead which is completely counter to modern science now or then. It is the reductionist, deterministic, mechanistic view of nature which Whitehead rejects. — prothero

That's why I mentioned "Holism" in my post above, which includes the Ideas & Ideals & Meanings (culture) that are omitted from the scientific Reductionist view of nature. It encompasses both innate Matter and emergent Mind in the process of Evolution. Holism is the Synthetic tendency in evolution*2. It's how old stuff is transformed into new stuff. And how living organisms emerge from non-living matter. :wink:

*2. Holism and Evolution :
Unfortunately, Holism is still controversial in Philosophy. That is primarily due to the practical and commercial success of reductive methods in the physical sciences. Methodological Reductionism attempts to understand a complex system by breaking it down into its component parts. And that approach works well for mechanical devices, but not so well for living things.
https://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page33.html

Whitehead was a logician and mathematician so he did not (to my knowledge) believe in ESP in the usual sense. — prothero

In my previous post, I opined that Whitehead did not mean that Magical ESP could reveal information & knowledge via non-physical channels. But perhaps there is another option. I've seen him described as an Idealist*1, but not as a Mystic*2. Is it possible that Whitehead believed that it was possible to commune directly with God?

He doesn't seem to be the type to revel in ecstasies & altered states. I occasionally (rarely) learn some relevant information via easy Intuition instead of effortful Reason. But I don't think of it as Mystical enlightenment, rather as "pattern-matching, in which case the motivated brain accesses long-buried data in long-term memory.

Perhaps ANW thought that all things were connected back to God (occasion of creation) , but not necessarily directly. :smile:

*1. Idealism :
In the third argument, the idealist holds that in the individual’s most-immediate experience, that of his own subjective awareness, the intuitive self can achieve a direct apprehension of ultimate reality, which reveals it to be spiritual. Thus, the mystic bypasses normal cognition, feeling that, for metaphysical probings, the elaborate processes of mediation interposed between sense objects and their perceptions reduce its reliability as compared with the direct grasp of intuition.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/idealism/Basic-arguments

*2. ANW Mysticism? :
Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy, particularly his concept of "process philosophy," while not explicitly focused on mysticism, can be seen as having mystical implications, emphasizing the interconnectedness of all things and the importance of direct experience and intuition
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+mystical

Yes, as his 'answer to Hume'. As I said, I'm an admirer of Whitehead, at least of what I know of him, but I'm a bit uneasy about the panpsychist element, that's all. — Wayfarer

Me too. Which is why I developed my own alternative to the worldview of "all mind" by substituting "information" in place of "consciousness". According to my amateur philosophical thesis, both Mind and Matter are emergent forms of Generic Information (Causation), which is best known as Energy.

In that case, Consciousness is in effect a highly-evolved form of Energy (ability to cause change). If that sounds far-fetched, just imagine the Big Bang as a burst of Causation, with no known precedent. Then, after 13billion earth-years of material evolution, first Life and then Mind emerged & evolved on a blue planet in the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in the vastness of the space-time bubble we call the Universe. Hence, all known examples of Consciousness are found in terrestrial animated matter with complex brain tissue. And instances of Self-Consciousness are limited to a few cortex-wrapped brains that are capable of self-reference and self-knowing.

Of course, we can't know non-self consciousness, except by inference from intentional behavior. So, if rocks and atoms are conscious, they don't act like it. Therefore, I think Whitehead's notion of Prehension and "alternative modes of perception" (rational inference?) must apply only to entities capable of philosophical thinking : a sub-set of homo sapiens. Does that make sense to you? Does the imputed uniqueness of humanity seem arrogant --- from the perspective of a rock --- or perhaps reasonable enough to ease your philosophical mind? :smile:


Modern philosophical and scientific sensibility also professes to find some of Whitehead’s core doctrines fundamentally wrong-headed, most especially the panpsychism – the idea that mentality is a fundamental or ‘primitive’ feature of reality of which everything partakes in some measure and in some way. Whitehead himself never used the term ‘panpsychism’ to describe his own views so far as I know (see Hartshorne 1950).
https://www.utsc.utoronto.ca/~seager/whitehead.htm

Realism :
Hartshorne's panpsychism is a form of realism, meaning he believes in the existence of a real world independent of our perception, but he views this world as composed of minds or psychic entities.
Critique of Idealism :
While Hartshorne shares some common ground with idealism, he distinguishes his panpsychism by accepting the reality of the world as perceived through our senses, rather than viewing it as merely ideas within a divine mind.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Hartshorne%2C+C.+%281950%29.+%E2%80%98Panpsychism%E2%80%99

Consciousness is in effect a highly-evolved form of Energy (ability to cause change). If that sounds far-fetched, just imagine the Big Bang as a burst of Causation, with no known precedent. Then, after 13billion earth-years of material evolution, first Life and then Mind emerged & evolved on a blue planet in the outskirts of an ordinary galaxy somewhere in the vastness of the space-time bubble we call the Universe. Hence, all known examples of Consciousness are found in terrestrial animated matter with complex brain tissue. — Gnomon

The truth of essence proves an anti-climax;
No complex web or intricate syntax,
But simple beyond all expectation—
'Tis here, in being, where true wonder acts!

This seems all an argument trying to say I don't understand language. — prothero

No, no. While I'm not sure how you got that, really, it was not my intention at all. I do think you're using words in an incoherent fashion, but that's not to say you don't know this. Most people like to do so, and it doesn't seem to get in the way of much. I am just telling you where it's causing me problems.

try "prehension" for the idea instead but you will likely have to look it up. — prothero

It seems I'm one of the only posters who has read Process and Reality. LOL.

Where in the chain of nature do you speculate mind begins or ends? — prothero

I don't think this is a particularly good question. I don't know how to answer it. I doubt anyone does. A brain seems to imply a mind. That's all I can give you. I don't 'believe' anything on this front.

Neither consciousness. Whenever a being has a subjective experience, they are conscious. That's the best I can give you *shrug*. I can't think of a more helpful use of that word. You may be able to. Yours, to me, seems very unhelpful (eg by folding jellyfish and insects into the 'conscious' category it overlaps with others and just further muddies the waters we're trying to clear).