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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitehead's Process Philosophy*3 was an attempt to create a new non-classical worldview that would take into account the Statistical Uncertainty and Indeterminate Mechanics of the New Physics, which eventually became the most validated scientific theory*4, despite it's unorthodox philosophical implications. — Gnomon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe the difference there is pedantic, I don't know. I actually can think of one important difference, though - if you can construct another, physically different object that undergoes isomorphic processes, then in my view, it's the same thing. If you can imagine a machine that was constructed to behave exactly like a brain, following the exact same high-level neuronal processes, but being chemically very different, then if the mind is "the processes the brain does", this machine is as much a mind as the brain, since it's performing the same high-level processes.

A machine that, for example, computes a neural net. (I'm not saying neural nets as they are now are conscious, I'm instead saying that if it were possible to make a neural net that follows all of the same processes as our own brains, they could be).

What current evidence says that's wrong?

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Science and the Modern World, Whitehead writes:
Science has never shaken off the impress of its origin in the historical revolt of the later renaissance. It has remained predominantly an anti-rationalistic movement, based upon a naive faith. What reasoning it has wanted it has borrowed from mathematics which is a surviving relic of Greek rationalism, following the deductive method. Science repudiates philosophy. In other words, it has never cared to justify its faith or to explain its meanings; and has remained blandly indifferent to its refutation by Hume. — Gnomon

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

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

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

Not exactly.

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

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

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

Non-Duality and Interconnectedness: Eastern philosophies emphasize the non-dual nature of reality, suggesting that everything is interconnected and part of a unified whole. Quantum physics, with its principles of entanglement and non-locality, also suggests an interconnectedness at the fundamental level of reality. — Gnomon

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

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

Again, current evidence would suggest you’re wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

I can promise that’s not it.

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

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

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

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

Again, current evidence would suggest you’re wrong. — Darkneos

Again, what current evidence is that?

Again, what current evidence is that? — flannel jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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



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

Nothing i said would even remotely suggest memory isnt a function of the physical bain. I would hazard a guess that you didnt read much of what i wrote, because even a little bit of effort toward understanding it would lead you to see that my idea would fully predict memory loss, and other cognitive loss, from brain damage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mind is physical, it’s the brain. — Darkneos

Does a dead brain have a mind?


Perhaps you don't agree with Whitehead's formulation of process philosophy, and that's fine. However, you write as if it's the only possible way to understand it. I don't particularly care what Whitehead said about process philosophy. Before i even knew who he was, i already had the idea that most, if not all things are processes of some sort occurring at different rates and scales. I try to think from a first principles perspective, not from the perspective of a particular scientist or philosopher. Consensus is not proof, or even evidence of anything. In fact consensus is a process that inevitably changes throughout history and time. Even your own understanding of this subject is a process of development regardless of what temporary conclusions you come to.

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

Maybe it would also help if you asked a specific and focused question. A question that addresses the exact crux of your issue with the general idea of process philosophy as you understand it.

Does a dead brain have a mind? — punos

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn’t say, since no one has really been able to explain it or answer my questions. — Darkneos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which then brings up my earlier questions

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

At first sight, it is reasonable to assume that "things" are static objects. It is also easy to see that things interact with each other through events. All this is apparent at the macro scale we inhabit. If we leave it at that, we can conclude that events depend on things. However, if we peer deeply into matter, as i have already explained, we can see that atoms are not static and appear to be made of smaller components interacting with each other as well.

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

If my brain was dead so would I because I’d be dead. — Darkneos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Still doesn't answer my questions.

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a perspective from which it appears that there are no processes?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I read an earlier version of this back in the 90s, and it really helped me. I recommend that everyone read it. Although it's written for hackers, it is applicable in any field of interest.

How To Ask Questions The Smart Way