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

I feel like process just needlessly complicates it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes less and less sense each time.

I feel like process just needlessly complicates it. — Darkneos

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

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

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

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

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

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

Makes less and less sense each time. — Darkneos

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

If it's just an event then it has no feelings or emotions and cannot love or feel pain. Only individuals do that. — Darkneos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The World is one Process - Alan Watts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind that our ethics focuses on individuals not processes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, i don't. Explain.

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

Another assertion without an explanation as to why you think so. Then for you it is as you say it is.

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

How can an individual be considered a static entity? You seem to be asserting that because an individual is static, they must have emotions. Please explain how an emotion is not a process.

Running is a process an individual performs that burns energy, and that process is what causes hunger. Hunger is a biological process that compels you to seek food, which is another process. When you have acquired food, the process of eating begins, which includes the process of digestion.

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

Just because you're not understanding the reasoning doesn't mean i haven't provided any. The problem is that i don't know what your issue is. I've asked so that i can focus on the actual issue instead of taking stabs in the dark, but you refuse to answer any of my questions with any precision.

Please reproduce or point out for me where i simply insisted that something is so without at least attempting to give some account as to why or how.

Static and living isn't a contradiction. — Darkneos

Yes it is.

Static:

• Refers to something fixed, stationary, or unchanging
• Implies a lack of movement or progress

Living:

• Describes something alive, growing, or evolving
• Implies change, development, and adaptation

Never mind that our ethics focuses on individuals not processes. — Darkneos

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

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

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

On some level I understand what it means, that since things are dynamic it makes more sense to label them as events instead of things. But on the other hand they are pretty solid and do endure, unlike events, so maybe it's somewhere in between. — Darkneos

That's good. At least you see the dynamism involved. Have you looked into the physics of why things feel solid?

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

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

It's not my job to make your argument. — Darkneos

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

It's like Einstein would say (to paraphrase) "if you really understood something you could explain it to a 5 year old". Don't make excuses. — Darkneos

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writing humans off as just static objects is cold, ice cold. If regarding people as processes is considered cold in your view, then i would not like to be the one to change your mind about that. It is probably better that you keep it the way it is, at least for now.

the evidence consciousness does make "referral" to the brain states. — Darkneos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

That sounds like an excuse.

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

Well you haven't really explained it like that.

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

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

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

Well the problem is that people don't see it like that. People are "objects" but they aren't static. I mean we are made up of things after all and those things engage in processes, hence why I said both. To consider something static isn't for it to be inanimate, and they'd still feel pain. But to write it off as a process just makes it seem like it's not a human being, an entity, or a thing. It's nothing, because processes involve things but aren't things themselves.

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

What does that mean? — Darkneos

It doesn't explain the 'voting' process of the neurological.

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

It only pertains to you. The show is a lot of fun, as well as being serious about the law, and they have to figure out the process behind the incident to help defend the client.

Choice is an illusion. — Darkneos

Hey, that's good! It takes the subconscious brain about a third of a second to do its analysis, and only when it finishes does consciousness get the result.

What does that mean? — Darkneos

Hey, you finally went to sleep after all day on the forum, so I'll leave this to you and all to read the next day.

I'll leave this to you and all to read — PoeticUniverse

Which is:

The Nature of Consciousness Part 1
(Some gleaned from Gsin)

Within the Brain's vast Palace, deep and strange,
Consciousness flows, yet cannot free-range;
Like Sun or Tree, a Process, not a Thing—
A river bound within its banks of change.

(It, as a brain process can’t float around)

What fills our Minds arrives not instant-new,
But late, some half-millisecond past its due;
The Brain's swift voting finished ere we know,
Our conscious thoughts already past and through.

(A forced delay, unconscious analysis taking time )

The Map we see becomes our Territory,
While neural states write out out second story;
The basement toils unseen beneath our feet,
As upstairs dwells our conscious inventory.

(The ‘basement’ is the first storey of one’s self)

Thus Consciousness arrives too late to cause,
Though seeming master of all nature's laws;
A broadcast tape-delayed, yet feeling live—
The director speaks once action draws!

(Enjoy the play)

And when one thought has flickered through the mind,
More brain-realms answer, leaving none behind;
Thus contemplation's thread unwinds its spool,
Each moment to the next forever twined.

(The Great Stitcher; no seams)

Behold its nature's aspects five unfold:
Compositional structures manifold,
Intrinsic as our own, Informing clear,
Integrated, Exclusive in its hold.

(The whole operation)

United feels this field of conscious thought,
Though scattered be the brain-realms where it's wrought;
The qualia of sense-experience shine,
While seamless flows the change that time has brought.

(Perfect Unity!)

How can this ghost of thought move flesh and bone,
When neural deed is done and verdict known
Before awareness breaks upon our shore?
The answer in time's sequence lies alone.

(The brain does it)

Yet Consciousness brings gifts beyond mere scheme
Of reflex-action's automatic stream:
Flexibility to shape reaction's course,
And Focus sharp on what we vital deem.

(Exclusion)

It grants Evaluation's weighted scale,
Where logic, feeling, neither can quite fail;
For Survival it opens pathways new,
Where Complex choices might yet prevail.

(Evaluation)

Through Learning's endless combinations bright,
We weave perception's threads in fresh delight;
Discrimination's finest differences show
Which fruits bring health, which hold destruction's bite.

(The will is dynamic)

In Evolution's grand unfolding play,
It spurred the Cambrian dawn of nature's way;
Made predators grow keen in cunning's art,
While prey found newer paths from day to day.

(The explosion)

See Beauty bloom in flower's painted face,
As plants evolved their pollinator's grace;
While minds could ponder action's consequence
Before commitment to time's embrace.

(Actionizing)

Reality stands firm beyond our sight,
Our senses taking in its waves of light;
The Brain paints useful faces on these waves—
Makes color from mere frequency's delight.

(Just three proteins in the eye rotating according to the amount of the three primary colors)

When drugs or sleep or trauma's sudden blow
Disturb the brain, consciousness sinks below;
Change neural paths, and mind must follow suit—
For only from the brain can awareness flow.

(Consciousness is a brain process reflected)

We often miss the sea in which we swim,
Mistaking thought-stream's contents, fleeting-dim,
For consciousness itself that bears them all,
Like water bearing leaves on ocean's rim.

(The Sea in which we See)

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

There are different kinds of processes involved in higher states of complexity. A rock, for example, is part of geological, mineral, and atomic processes, but does not include cellular or biological processes. Beyond biological processes, there are mental and psychological processes, and further up, there are cultural and social processes. A human has all of these processes happening at once. The rock has only a fraction of these processes, which do not include the biological, psychological, or socio-cultural processes. The difference lies in the types of processes that are occurring.

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

Robots are imitations of biological processes; this does not contradict what i'm saying. They are just much simpler than the processes they are trying to mimic or imitate in biological systems.

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

Right. It is not nature's job to align with you; it is your job to align with it. Misalignment with the principles of nature leads to eventual destruction.

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

Then why do you think Buddhists are so focused on compassion for all beings? Some of them go to the extreme of not washing in an effort not to kill bacteria. It appears to me, at least, that these Buddhists can have more compassion and love for other entities than you and i combined. Maybe look into why they think this way even while they believe there is no self. Apparently, it doesn't mean to them what you think it means. Why is that?

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

It does not. You interpret it that way because that's how you define it. In fact, i don't understand how seeing a person as a process or as a static object would make this kind of difference, really. If i love my girlfriend/wife without knowing if she is a process or not, then why would my love change just because i now think she's a process? Nothing should change in that regard. You're just confusing yourself with words.

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

If his life is some sort of stumbling block for you then forget Alan Watts. Throw that sucker in the garbage, and be done with him. Moving on...

That sounds like an excuse. — Darkneos

Ok, then i'll say we both have excuses.

Well you haven't really explained it like that. — Darkneos

I'm not going to do something i know won't work. I just know it won't.

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

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

Well the problem is that people don't see it like that. People are "objects" but they aren't static. I mean we are made up of things after all and those things engage in processes, hence why I said both. To consider something static isn't for it to be inanimate, and they'd still feel pain. But to write it off as a process just makes it seem like it's not a human being, an entity, or a thing. It's nothing, because processes involve things but aren't things themselves. — Darkneos

Fine, so what is the fundamental static substance on which these processes run and operate? Is it like little solid balls or objects like the atoms of Democritus?

Alan Watts — punos

I didn't watch it but he probably wisely said that all that goes on is the one big effect of the Big Bang.

I note that we impose artificial boundaries to estimate local cause and effect as best can do.

Thus Consciousness arrives too late to cause,
Though seeming master of all nature's laws;
A broadcast tape-delayed, yet feeling live—
The director speaks once action draws! — PoeticUniverse

That doesn’t seem to be the case. There is no subconscious as you are making it out to be or “layers” like you make it. The subconscious as we know it is just responsible for the automatic functions of the body. Consciousness doesn’t arrive too late.

United feels this field of conscious thought,
Though scattered be the brain-realms where it's wrought;
The qualia of sense-experience shine,
While seamless flows the change that time has brought — PoeticUniverse

Qualia doesn’t exist.

We often miss the sea in which we swim,
Mistaking thought-stream's contents, fleeting-dim,
For consciousness itself that bears them all,
Like water bearing leaves on ocean's rim. — PoeticUniverse

This is also incorrect as is the whole “poem”, consciousness is a thought process. The “thought stream” is consciousness.

It doesn't explain the 'voting' process of the neurological. — PoeticUniverse

It does actually.

Hey, that's good! It takes the subconscious brain about a third of a second to do its analysis, and only when it finishes does consciousness get the result. — PoeticUniverse

Not really, the subconscious isn’t what you think it is.

It only pertains to you. The show is a lot of fun, as well as being serious about the law, and they have to figure out the process behind the incident to help defend the client. — PoeticUniverse

Again, what was the point of that.

Yet Consciousness brings gifts beyond mere scheme
Of reflex-action's automatic stream:
Flexibility to shape reaction's course,
And Focus sharp on what we vital deem. — PoeticUniverse

Not really.

It grants Evaluation's weighted scale,
Where logic, feeling, neither can quite fail;
For Survival it opens pathways new,
Where Complex choices might yet prevail — PoeticUniverse

No it does not. Consciousness doesn’t DO anything.

I didn't watch it but he probably wisely said that all that goes on is the one big effect of the Big Bang.

I note that we impose artificial boundaries to estimate local cause and effect as best can do. — PoeticUniverse

It’s more like recognition not imposition.

Like…you’ve said nothing besides errors in how the brain works.

Right. It is not nature's job to align with you; it is your job to align with it. Misalignment with the principles of nature leads to eventual destruction. — punos

That’s incorrect. You misunderstand nature.

Then why do you think Buddhists are so focused on compassion for all beings? Some of them go to the extreme of not washing in an effort not to kill bacteria. It appears to me, at least, that these Buddhists can have more compassion and love for other entities than you and i combined. Maybe look into why they think this way even while they believe there is no self. Apparently, it doesn't mean to them what you think it means. Why is that? — punos

Because it’s called cognitive dissonance. But what they have isn’t true compassion since that requires attachment. Theirs is more an abstract notion of it rather than one grounded in anything.

Nothing should change in that regard. You're just confusing yourself with words. — punos

Because you’re still seeing an individual and not a process. It’s to do with the Buddhist notion and how the lose the feeling of love when they realize no self. If you still feel love and care then you’re not seeing them as a process.

Fine, so what is the fundamental static substance on which these processes run and operate? Is it like little solid balls or objects like the atoms of Democritus? — punos

Well from what I understand it’s particles and matter. The “everything is made of fields” thing is a misunderstanding of it, it makes people foolishly think there is nothing solid.

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

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

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

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


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

No it does not. Consciousness doesn’t DO anything. — Darkneos

True! The brain does it.

You got one right.

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

I mean that’s a real thing. It’s one thing to know when you don’t understand, but it also helps to know when someone doesn’t, which doesn’t always involve you knowing better.

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

I already knew you didn’t understand what you’re talking about because all you do is just drop links and then claim like it’s some rabbit hole when this is just a school of thought much as any other.

From the google AI (which I warned about) just sounds like moral relativism, which isn’t news. But if that’s true then it’s a bad ethical framework out of the gate. It can only be adaptive in the context of a greater framework. Whitehead is able to develop his philosophy because no one else follows it and because of normative ethics.

The problem with an adaptive and situational morality is that it’s not a framework to act on.

You’re not fooling anyone.

True! The brain does it.

You got one right. — PoeticUniverse

So then what’s your point then?