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
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
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
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
I feel like process just needlessly complicates it. — Darkneos
Well from an ethics and morality view, if stuff is just processes then it doesn't really matter since nothing lives or dies. — Darkneos
Processes don't feel hunger, thirst, loneliness, etc. Only individuals do. If they're just processes then who really gives a shit? — Darkneos
Makes less and less sense each time. — Darkneos
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. — PoeticUniverse
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
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
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
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
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
You realize the irony of quoting Einstein for process philosophy right? — Darkneos
Well no, if it's a process then it doesn't live or die so it doesn't matter. — Darkneos
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
Static and living isn't a contradiction. — Darkneos
Never mind that our ethics focuses on individuals not processes. — Darkneos
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
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
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
It's not my job to make your argument. — Darkneos
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
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
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
the evidence consciousness does make "referral" to the brain states. — Darkneos
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
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
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
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
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
It's your job to ask the right question. It's not an excuse, it's a reason. — punos
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
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
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
What does that mean? — Darkneos
Also I saw the show but don't see how it related to this or what you said. — Darkneos
Choice is an illusion. — Darkneos
What does that mean? — Darkneos
I'll leave this to you and all to read — PoeticUniverse
Yeah but then what's the difference if they're both just processes? What makes one human and the other not? — Darkneos
Well according to that other user apparently not. Apparently we're just robots, not that I have much issue with that. — Darkneos
I think nature and "Cares" don't really align, nature appears to be indifferent. — Darkneos
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
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
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
That sounds like an excuse. — Darkneos
Well you haven't really explained it like that. — Darkneos
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
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
Alan Watts — punos
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
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
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
It doesn't explain the 'voting' process of the neurological. — PoeticUniverse
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Nothing should change in that regard. You're just confusing yourself with words. — punos
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
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".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
No it does not. Consciousness doesn’t DO anything. — Darkneos
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 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
True! The brain does it.
You got one right. — PoeticUniverse
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.