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

Then I wonder what the trillions of neurons and their billions of connections are silently doing to come up with the results displayed in consciousness…

Then I wonder what the trillions of neurons and their billions of connections are silently doing to come up with the results displayed in consciousness… — PoeticUniverse

How is this related to the thread? Like I said, the subconscious is just automatic biological processes not some hidden “you”.

How is this related to the thread? — Darkneos

I give up for now.

I give up for now. — PoeticUniverse

I mean, to be blunt, you didn’t really try? What you said seemed off topic and didn’t make sense.

"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

So what does that mean exactly? That people don’t have emotions? That they can’t love or feel pain?

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

I just know it’s matter and that it’s solid from what physics says. What it’s made of is uncertain.

As for the process I guess it’s just that if I see someone as a process and not an individual I just automatically render them as soulless voids with no emotions.

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? — punos

seems to have a thing about Things, and dismisses Processes that are not things. I'm not sure where he's coming from, but a focus on Substance seems to be inherent in Materialism : "what it is instead of what it does". Based on my experience on this forum, the antithesis of Materialism may be Spiritualism : the obvious building blocks (Substance) of the world versus the invisible causal power (Change ; Evolution) in the real world.

Ironically, the ancient Atomists imagined the fundamental elements of reality as tiny balls of hard stuff, but they reluctantly added the non-stuff Void in order to allow Atoms to move and change form. But then the question arises : what Force holds minuscule atoms together in the macro scale objects that our senses perceive?

For Democritus, the material Atoms were viewed as more real than the Void (empty space). Yet, he didn't seem to have a concept of our modern notion of Energy or Forces, and motion was just taken for granted. So, his worldview was basically rigid, static & geometric instead of fluid, dynamic & amorphous. However, modern science has been forced to make allowances for immaterial Forces that move things around and hold them together.

Apparently Whitehead was intrigued by the importance of the non-things of the world, as exemplified in Quantum Physics. So, his focus was on Change & Causation (becoming) instead of just plain Being. I find it surprising that the OP questioned the Ethical implications of Process theory (subjectivity?), presumably as contrasted with the Ethics of Objects (objectivity). Apparently, Materialists interpret Process philosophy as a non-sensical (immaterial) religious & spiritual worldview. I can see the spiritual & theological implications*1, but I'm not aware of any practical religion based on the Process Theory.

I was inspired by this thread to dig deeper into Whitehead's philosophy, that seemed to be be compatible with my own non-religious worldview --- which was also based on the New Physics of quantum theory, plus the New Metaphysics of Information theory --- not on any particular religious tradition. I call that worldview Enformationism, as an update of both Materialism and Spiritualism, that have been scientifically outdated since the 20th century. Now I have uploaded a new post to my blog, as a brief summary of how Process and Reality compares with Enformationism. If you can find the time to read and review the two-page essay*2, I'd appreciate any constructive criticism you can offer. :smile:


*1. "Process and Reality" is a philosophical work by Alfred North Whitehead that explores the concept of reality as a dynamic, interconnected web of "actual occasions" where everything is constantly becoming, essentially presenting a spiritual perspective that views the universe as a process rather than a static structure; this is often referred to as "process philosophy" or "philosophy of organism."
___ Google A.I. Overview

*2. Evolutionary Process and Cosmic Reality :
"Alfred North Whitehead’s book, Process and Reality, is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific essay. But it challenges the philosophical implications of Darwin’s mechanistic theory of Evolution. Instead of a simple series of energy exchanges, the Cosmos functions as a holistic organism. Hence, the eventual emergence of subordinate living creatures should not be surprising."
http://bothandblog8.enformationism.info/page43.html

seems to have a thing about Things, and dismisses Processes that are not things. I'm not sure where he's coming from, but a focus on Substance seems to be inherent in Materialism : "what it is instead of what it does". Based on my experience on this forum, the antithesis of Materialism may be Spiritualism : the obvious building blocks (Substance) of the world versus the invisible causal power (Change ; Evolution) in the real world. — Gnomon

Spiritualism, from the evidence, appears to be nothing more than delusion. But my question is about the ethical implications of it which you keep dodging.

Apparently Whitehead was intrigued by the importance of the non-things of the world, as exemplified in Quantum Physics. So, his focus was on Change & Causation (becoming) instead of just plain Being. I find it surprising that the OP questioned the Ethical implications of Process theory (subjectivity?), presumably as contrasted with the Ethics of Objects (objectivity). Apparently, Materialists interpret Process philosophy as a non-sensical (immaterial) religious & spiritual worldview. I can see the spiritual & theological implications*1, but I'm not aware of any practical religion based on the Process Theory. — Gnomon

And you still missed the point of my original questions.

I was inspired by this thread to dig deeper into Whitehead's philosophy, that seemed to be be compatible with my own non-religious worldview --- which was also based on the New Physics of quantum theory, plus the New Metaphysics of Information theory --- not on any particular religious tradition. I call that worldview Enformationism, as an update of both Materialism and Spiritualism, that have been scientifically outdated since the 20th century. Now I have uploaded a new post to my blog, as a brief summary of how Process and Reality compares with Enformationism. If you can find the time to read and review the two-page essay*2, I'd appreciate any constructive criticism you can offer — Gnomon

Far as I can tell materialism isn’t outdated, even by modern quantum physics. People who cite that everything is just fields misunderstand what that means and that physics isn’t actually saying that. Matter is real and physical and solid, what it’s made of is being investigated.

People who cite the “philosophical implications” of this stuff don’t understand it well enough to do so.

"Alfred North Whitehead’s book, Process and Reality, is a philosophical thesis, not a scientific essay. But it challenges the philosophical implications of Darwin’s mechanistic theory of Evolution. Instead of a simple series of energy exchanges, the Cosmos functions as a holistic organism. Hence, the eventual emergence of subordinate living creatures should not be surprising." — Gnomon

I would say it doesn’t do a good job of that considering how successful Darwin’s theory was and how barely anyone uses Whitehead.

Spiritualism, from the evidence, appears to be nothing more than delusion.

People [like @Gnomon] who cite the “philosophical implications” of this stuff don’t understand [modern quantum physics] well enough to do so. — Darkneos

:up: :up:

But my question is about the ethical implications of it [process philosophy]

I don't think there are any "ethical implications" unique to either the naturalistic-chaotic (Dewey, Deleuze, Prigogine-Stengers) or the theistic-teleological (Whitehead, Hartshorne) versions of process philosophy.

Rather, as far as I can make it out, "becoming" (dynamics) is broadly conceived of as a metaphysical constraint on "being" (stasis, reification) such that, metaethically, becoming moral (via inquiry, creativity, alterity) supercedes being moral (re: dogma, normativity, totality) – and moral in the "process" sense, I guess, means Good (i.e. always striving – learning how – to treat each other (re: community & the commons) in non-zerosum/non-egocentric (i.e. dialectically holistic) ways ~my terms, not theirs).

Rather, as far as I can make it out, "becoming" (dynamics) is broadly conceived of as a metaphysical constraint on "being" (stasis, reification) such that, metaethically, becoming moral (via inquiry, creativity, alterity) supercedes being moral (re: dogma, normativity, totality) – and moral in the "process" sense, I guess, means Good (i.e. always learning how to treat each other (re: community & the commons) in non-zerosum/non-egocentric ways ~my terms, not theirs). — 180 Proof

This is why I often take the Buddhas stance on metaphysics in this; it doesn’t matter. Also why I don’t partake in philosophy often.

Just seems like needless complications.

That said even a dynamic system like they claim to have still has a static moral rule system in place to strive for, otherwise you have no ethics or morality like I said before. Even if you are adapting there is a still a goal to that adaptation based on something else.

So, what is the point of 'Process Philosophy'?

What are its ethical implications? Or any other kind, for that matter? — Amity

I can't say with any authority, what Whitehead's "point" was. But my takeaway is that he was inspired by the counterintuitive-yet-provable "facts" of the New Physics of the 20th century --- that contrasted with 17th century Classical Physics --- to return the distracted philosophical focus a> from what is observed (matter), to the observer (mind), b> from local to universal, c> from mechanical steps to ultimate goals. Where Science studies *percepts* (specifics ; local ; particles), the New Philosophy will investigate *concepts* (generals ; universals ; processes). The "point" of that re-directed attention was the same as always though : basic understanding of Nature, Reality, Knowledge, and Value*1.

Our senses & intuitions are "tuned" to macro-scale Newtonian mechanics. Which is why quantum things & processes seem weird. During the 19th century, Physical Science had been very successful in allowing one species to take control of their environment. Consequently, the pragmatic victories scored by Matter-manipulating Physics & Chemistry, had put theoretical Philosophy in a bad light. And, when their former role as the captains of academia diminished in market value, philosophers began to suffer from "lab coat envy". Consequently, today, on this very forum, speculative & argumentative philosophy is often disparaged as useless, unless it can point to empirical evidence. Many TPF posters seem to have taken the attitude : if you can't beat them (science) join them (Scientism).

On the other hand, Whitehead seemed to envision, in the light of quantum physics, a new direction for Natural Philosophy. Instead of continuing the ancient quest of Atomism (the ultimate particle of matter), philosophers should now turn their attention to Wholes instead of Parts. From this new/old perspective, the Cosmos is not just a swirling mass of matter/energy, but an evolving process metaphysically moving toward some future state. Exactly what that Omega Point might be is of course unknown, but its direction can be inferred from the trajectory of its history.

Modern materialistic Science has been superbly successful in wresting control of Nature for the benefit of a few featherless big-brain bipeds. But Metaphysical Philosophy is not concerned with such practical matters. Instead, it studies intellectual questions of Meaning & Value. By contrast, Science per se is not interested in Ethics other than Utility : such as the very successful Atom bomb project, aimed at annihilating cities. So, the Ethics of Science*2 seems to be a philosophical endeavor tacked-on after the fact : as when Oppenheimer lamented, "I have become Death, destroyer of worlds".

Whitehead's philosophy can be labeled as Spiritual*3 (intellectual instead of physical) in the sense that it recognizes invisible forces & fields*4 at work in the world. But, unlike the traditional scientific notion of local cause & effect, he speculates on universal causes that control the direction of Evolution. So, whatever Ethics is associated with Process Philosophy will be global in its effects, and teleological in its aims. :nerd:

*1. Point of Philosophy vs Science :
# Science deals in evidence while philosophy deals in arguments
# Science looks for empirical knowledge and facts, while philosophy often focuses on abstract ideas and values
# Science is about descriptive facts; philosophy is often about that, but is also about normative and evaluative truths
# Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists.

*2. Ethics of Materialism :
Materialism is a philosophy that prioritizes material things over spiritual or intellectual ones. Materialistic ethics are ethical theories that are based on the idea that the only things that exist are matter, energy, and physical forces.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ethics+of+materialism
Note --- By contrast, Process Philosophy understands that whole systems also exist as the "more than" matter. The whole is more than the sum of the parts.

*3. Ethics of Spiritualism :
The ethics of spiritualism are a system of moral philosophy that considers the relationship between evolution and the existence of the human spirit after death. Spiritual ethics can also refer to the principles that guide how people use their spiritual beliefs and practices in the world.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=ethics+of+spiritualism
Note --- Unlike theological religions, Whitehead's philosophical theology was not primarily concerned with an afterlife, but in our evolutionary adaptation to the evolving world.

*4. Quantum Fields are philosophical theories tacked-on to the new physics, when the long-sought ultimate particle remained elusive, and the inter-relationships of entanglement became undeniable.
"Quantum fields are not made of anything as far as we know. They just exist in the universe based on quantum field theory." https://www.quora.com/What-are-quantum-fields-made-of-and-when-were-they-formed

Quantum Fields are philosophical theories tacked-on to the new physics, when the long-sought ultimate particle remained elusive, and the inter-relationships of entanglement became undeniable.
"Quantum fields are not made of anything as far as we know. They just exist in the universe based on quantum field theory." — Gnomon

This is why you don’t go to Quora for answers.

Materialism is a philosophy that prioritizes material things over spiritual or intellectual ones. Materialistic ethics are ethical theories that are based on the idea that the only things that exist are matter, energy, and physical forces — Gnomon

It’s not…

Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists. — Gnomon

Debatable.

I can't say with any authority, what Whitehead's "point" was. But my takeaway is that he was inspired by the counterintuitive-yet-provable "facts" of the New Physics of the 20th century --- that contrasted with 17th century Classical Physics --- to return the distracted philosophical focus a> from what is observed (matter), to the observer (mind), b> from local to universal, c> from mechanical steps to ultimate goals. Where Science studies *percepts* (specifics ; local ; particles), the New Philosophy will investigate *concepts* (generals ; universals ; processes). The "point" of that re-directed attention was the same as always though : basic understanding of Nature, Reality, Knowledge, and Value*1. — Gnomon

Again not really especially since it’s not New Physics, no one calls it that anyway. Nothing about physics then disproved materialism.

Modern materialistic Science has been superbly successful in wresting control of Nature for the benefit of a few featherless big-brain bipeds. But Metaphysical Philosophy is not concerned with such practical matters. Instead, it studies intellectual questions of Meaning & Value. By contrast, Science per se is not interested in Ethics other than Utility : such as the very successful Atom bomb project, aimed at annihilating cities. So, the Ethics of Science*2 seems to be a philosophical endeavor tacked-on after the fact : as when Oppenheimer lamented, "I have become Death, destroyer of worlds". — Gnomon

Not…really? Metaphysics for the most part hasn’t really changed anything about how reality works. Buddhism for example is pretty famous for saying it doesn’t matter.

Metaphysics doesn’t deal with meaning or value, that’s ethics (well more like existentialism). Science is concerned with ethics albeit in a roundabout manner as some research is underpinned by ethical issues and concerns.

Like I said before, you don’t understand this stuff well enough to comment on it, same with most philosophers attempting to reference physics let alone quantum physics.

You give the appearance of knowing what you’re talking about but peel it back and it’s clear you don’t.

Whitehead's philosophy can be labeled as Spiritual*3 (intellectual instead of physical) in the sense that it recognizes invisible forces & fields*4 at work in the world. But, unlike the traditional scientific notion of local cause & effect, he speculates on universal causes that control the direction of Evolution. So, whatever Ethics is associated with Process Philosophy will be global in its effects, and teleological in its aims. — Gnomon

A simple “I don’t know what it means” would suffice.

Far as I can tell he posited a God under it all as directing things, but he didn’t speculate invisible forces or fields. You don’t even understand quantum field theory and neither did he, he died before it truly took off.

His philosophy also suggests panpsychism, which is problematic enough without positing universal causes he can’t demonstrate.

I think there’s a reason his philosophy never took off.

So, what is the point of 'Process Philosophy'?

What are its ethical implications? Or any other kind, for that matter?
— Amity

I can't say with any authority... — Gnomon

Hello. I wrote that on page 1. At the end of my longer response to @Count Timothy von Icarus's substantive post, here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963537

I then posted an informative video concerning:

Insights from Nicolas Rescher's Philosophy: Process Metaphysics (06:43) — Amity

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963557

I disagreed with @Darkneos's opinion that it was 'dehumanising'.

People are not being labelled as 'just processes'. It seems to be a way to understand humans and their place in the world. As individuals and part of many processes, relationships and interactions, including the creative. Changing and not static.
Just as in:
Essentially it means that all is flux, nothing is static
— punos — Amity

As far as I recall, @Darkneos did not reply to @Count Timothy von Icarus.

And now the thread is on p5.
So be it. Another process along the way.

I have nothing further to contribute, here.
My attention is now on writing something for the Philosophy Writing Challenge - June 2025.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15749/philosophy-writing-challenge-june-2025-announcement/p1

Perhaps will see some of you there? In the meantime, best wishes :sparkle:

Science looks at what is, while philosophy looks at why it exists.
— @Gnomon

Debatable — Darkneos

Is it though? He sounds to me patently uninformed (as you've repeatedly pointed out); after all, "why" pertains only to actual agents and not to existence and "what" pertains to descriptions, not to explanations. Much less "debatable", I (unoriginally) propose that science seeks to testably explain how states-of-affairs – physical systems – transform (e.g. hypothetical-deductions) whereas philosophy concerns reflectively making explicit the rational and/or pragmatic limits (which include describing presuppositions as well as implications or derived prescriptions) of any given explanation ... e.g. Socratic inquiries. Clearly Whitehead's "process philosophy" fails to do either well like nearly all other flavors of idealism, imo, because he attempts to do both together confusing the disciplines' distinct levels of analysis or generality.

As far as I recall, Darkneos did not reply to @Count Timothy von Icarus. — Amity

Because they didn’t address my questions so I didn’t respond. He also pointed out the flaws with process philosophy.

And now the thread is on p5.
So be it. Another process along the way — Amity

And you still never answered my questions. All this just sorta proves to me why this philosophy never took off.

I disagreed with Darkneos's opinion that it was 'dehumanising'. — Amity

You never really explained why, you never explained anything.

:heart: :flower:

So far no one’s been able to answer the original post.

:cry: :snicker:

cry: :snicker: — Amity

I think maybe you just don’t understand it. Like when I said it was dehumanizing and all punos could really do is insist it’s not.

Even the guy you quoted in this thread acknowledged issues with process Philosophy

I've loved, I've laughed, and cried
I've had my fill, my share of losing
And now, as tears subside
I find it all so amusing

:smirk:
:cool:

So far no one’s been able to answer the original post. — Darkneos

How does the following fail to answer your OP?

(p.1)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/963559

plus

(p. 5)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/966863

Not really showing the ethical implications with the first one, though it does show how needlessly complicated they make it, not to mention the issues with panpsychism.

As for the second the whole “becoming moral” thing doesn’t really get at the issue I’m saying, on top of needlessly complicating things. I also mentioned that even an “adaptable” ethics system still has a static system underpinning it otherwise there are no ethics to it.

I disagreed with Darkneos's opinion that it was 'dehumanising — Amity

Again not explaining anything.

Do you not think it’s dehumanizing because according to process philosophy humans don’t exist? Because that’s my point pretty much.

if you don’t know you don’t know, doesn’t seem anyone does.

Do you not think it’s dehumanizing because according to process philosophy humans don’t exist? Because that’s my point pretty much. — Darkneos

I'm beginning to see why Whitehead's process philosophy bothers you so much. He seems to have formulated a worldview that is closer to that of indigenous people around the world than to western science & physics. It's based on cycles & flux instead of linear time & static things.

My background was in the western traditions of both religion and science. But in my later years, I am trying to understand other ways of viewing reality. I'm currently reading a book written by a British quantum physicist, David Peat, who has studied the cultures of indigenous Americans (I'll call them Indigians instead of Indians). He says "our western minds desire to sort things out, to arrange knowledge in a logical fashion and order the world into categories. . . . it is not so much the questions themselves that are the problem, but the whole persistent desire to obtain knowledge through a particular analytical route".

He seems to find some commonalities between his sub-atomic world-model and the worldview of non-western humans. Just as quantum entities have properties of both waves and particles, human persons are both individuals and immersed in larger Holistic systems. He notes that "quantum theory stresses the irreducible link between observer and observed and the basic holism of all phenomena". That may sound like nonsense or BS to you. But it makes sense to some professional physicists --- admittedly a minority --- such as David Bohm ; whose notion of Implicate and Explicate orders of reality is not accepted in mainstream science. Probably because it is more philosophical than scientific, more holistic than analytic.

In Peat's book, he compares the two worldviews by noting that "in modern physics the essential stuff of the universe cannot be reduced to billiard-ball atoms, but exists as relationships and fluctuations at the boundary of what we call matter and energy". Also, in Whitehead's Process and Reality, he prefaces his Gifford lectures with "these lectures will be best understood by noting the following list of prevalent habits of thought, which are repudiated, in so far as concerns their influence on philosophy : 1. The distrust of speculative thought". You may consider Indigians to be ignorant savages, but Peat finds their holistic science to be compatible with his own non-mechanical, probabilistic Physics.

Apparently, your "habits of thought", and to some degree my own, make it difficult to understand the non-classical non-western holistic worldview of Quantum Physics and Indigenous peoples. Richard Feynman expressed his own "distrust of speculative thought" by advising his students to "shut-up and calculate". But this is supposed to be a Philosophy forum, in which speculative thought is de rigeur. So, if you find Whitehead's speculations to conflict with your Newtonian classical worldview, perhaps you should ignore the meaning & implications & ethics of Process philosophy, and stick to calculating abstract countable values. :wink:


Alfred North Whitehead (1861-1947) believed that humans are part of a fabric of reality that includes nature.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=whitehead+human+existence

Whitehead's theory of human personhood is formulated within the fabric of his highly original western metaphysical vision. Rejecting the Aristotelian doctrine of substantive being, Whitehead embraced instead an ontology of becoming that sought to categorize the things of this world within a naturalistic continuum. . . . . The focus of this paper is personal selfhood and personal identity in the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead.
https://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/PPer/PPerYong.htm

I'm beginning to see why Whitehead's process philosophy bothers you so much. He seems to have formulated a worldview that is closer to that of indigenous people around the world than to western science & physics. It's based on cycles & flux instead of linear time & static things — Gnomon

Not really. Indigenous people had varied views on the matter. For everyone one about cycles and flux you had another about spirits and stuff. Also it’s just science, nothing “western” about it. Even in their stories there was still static stuff.

"our western minds desire to sort things out, to arrange knowledge in a logical fashion and order the world into categories. . . . it is not so much the questions themselves that are the problem, but the whole persistent desire to obtain knowledge through a particular analytical route". — Gnomon

This is not true and a very reductive notion of western thought. It’s same when people try to lump “eastern philosophy” into one group even though it’s diverse with many disagreeing with each other.

Just as quantum entities have properties of both waves and particles, human persons are both individuals and immersed in larger Holistic systems. He notes that "quantum theory stresses the irreducible link between observer and observed and the basic holism of all phenomena". That may sound like nonsense or BS to you — Gnomon

Already he’s committed the basic mistake when talking about quantum physics and observation. It’s not what most think of when it comes to the term.

Also the term holistic physicist came up which is a red flag. Even just looking at his books shows he’s less than reliable on this stuff.

Though the tying of people with the properties of particles at the quantum level is a category error and kinda shows he doesn’t understand.

In Peat's book, he compares the two worldviews by noting that "in modern physics the essential stuff of the universe cannot be reduced to billiard-ball atoms, but exists as relationships and fluctuations at the boundary of what we call matter and energy" — Gnomon

Except this is not true as we have shown at the supercollider. The essential stuff can in fact be reduced to “billiard ball” atoms.

You may consider Indigians to be ignorant savages, but Peat finds their holistic science to be compatible with his own non-mechanical, probabilistic Physics. — Gnomon

Projection on your part.

So, if you find Whitehead's speculations to conflict with your Newtonian classical worldview, perhaps you should ignore the meaning & implications & ethics of Process philosophy, and stick to calculating abstract countable values. :wink: — Gnomon

You don’t understand the philosophy or the physics well enough to explain or cite either and the sources you cite are less than reliable. I’m pretty sure an Indian shaman could put it better, I know because I’ve met a few. Though from their view you and that Peat are already wrong by trying to put it into a philosophy, it’s not really something you can work out or explain, at least from what they say.

Apparently, your "habits of thought", and to some degree my own, make it difficult to understand the non-classical non-western holistic worldview of Quantum Physics and Indigenous peoples. — Gnomon

This speaks more to your lack of understanding and inability to explain. I know folks who “get it” so to speak and they don’t blame me for it.

Like I’ve said before, you’re good at pretending like you know what you’re talking about but you know nothing of the things you cite. I’m just wanting my questions answered but you don’t seem able to. You just go off on irrelevant tangents.

I also know you don’t read the sources you cite because that last paper showed how Whitehead failed.

I don’t know why I bother responding when it’s evident you know nothing of which you speak.