But my main question is what does this look like in day to day life and how one manages and interacts. That’s all I care about, what does it look like in action.

With Buddhism it’s easy (ish), it’s just doing it. Though that’s also what makes it hard but at least it’s something. But so far no one can explain what it looks like in action.

Further, how is the fields analogy a misunderstanding of this? These 'particles' have to interact with each other some how and the field is just the proposed thing that is meant to do that in rather esoteric quantum interpretations or a version of pilot wave theory. It can also been seen as being the name for the only thing doing the 'physical' work here as you can imagine in a hydrodynamical analogue model of Schrodinger's equation. — substantivalism

All I know is from what other physicists have told me, that a lot of people misunderstand quantum field theory and think it means what it doesn’t.

But as for the bosons I don’t think that means they aren’t solid it just means quantum mechanics is weirder than we thought. But from the answers I’m reading, YES it does mean there are multiple collocated particles.

Everything you’ve mentioned are still particles, it’s just that at the level things are weird.

Solidity becomes something that may not be a part of the micro-constituent parts of the world around us at least as proposed — substantivalism

Well not really. The level of atoms is so small that most people couldn’t fathom it or what it means, so when you learn atoms are mostly empty space it doesn’t mean much.

However, if we use the strawman 'everything is fields' idea then this weirdness goes away and we can just say the field is more intense there but not that there are multiple collocated particles. The particle analogy doesn't allow you this and would have to accept multi-particle collocation or interpenetration on a fundamental level as interpreting this — substantivalism

It’s hard to say one way or the other because at that level it’s just math. Anything philosophical is up in the air. Field theory is just a mathematical model, physics doesn’t tell us what reality is made of, it just uses math to predict it.

What is the actual problem. Its just a different language choice. — substantivalism

Well it’s more like I’m not sure if the people talking to me really understand it. When I’m asking Punos they just insist that it’s not cold or dehumanizing but can’t really explain why while I have.

The Human language is really adept at treating verbs as nouns and nouns as verbs just as easily. There are so many ordinary language analogies/metaphors we use which intermix these things all the time without issue. — substantivalism

Not in my experience. Can you give an example?

You just need to go a step further and start asking whether the metaphors/analogies you use influence your thinking. You obviously think they do because one of the issues you've had so far with process philosophy has been how it makes you emotionally view other people. Clearly, the language one uses can influence that just as for you its depressing while for punos its liberating and inspiring. — substantivalism

Unless you’re going to answer my original question about process philosophy this isn’t really getting anywhere.

Like I told them, if they’re just a process and not an individual then they don’t exist per process philosophy, so there isn’t really regarding them any way or other. They references Buddhism as an example but Buddhism isn’t process philosophy. Even process philosophy fails when it comes to describing reality as we see and experience it per the philosophy dictionary and some papers that have been linked. You still need substance for process philosophy to work.

So unless you’re going on explain how it’s not cold or dehumanizing then this post isn’t really informative. I’ve asked that question time and again and people can’t explain how, they just insist it’s not which isn’t an argument.

Philosophy only matters if we can tie it to our daily lives and so far no one has been able to demonstrate that with process philosophy which was my original question. I know one other person who seems to live a normal life but believes in this but when I ask him to explain it he can’t.

Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here. — AmadeusD

You never really made much of a case until the end, so there isn’t really much to respond to.

Even you said as scientifically true isn’t accurate. Science does recognize sameness, experimentation uses it after all.

Though the tone of your responses sorta gave away the sort of person you are so I can’t say I was expecting much.

If you can point me to any object which is unchanging, interminable and non-becoming (as it were) id be happy to hear it. But that would be an anomaly. It is scientifically obvious that all things are always in flux. That's what I've noted, and there's no serious way to disagree with this. Whitehead's account of that fact is what (may or may not.... I think almost certainly) fails to do us any good, scientifically. — AmadeusD

I would say the base level particles that make up reality. As for flux and sameness that’s a matter of interpretation, hence some of the holes in his philosophy. How do you classify dynamic. You say the word scientifically but I don’t think you know what that means. Even in science we still refer to some living things as being the same at least in biology. Like I said, it depends on definition and hence isn’t really a question for science.

I ignored most of your post because it was little more than whining. I said what I did about McKenna from being on a forum of shroomheads who still disagreed with him.

Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true. — AmadeusD

Yet you’re agreeing that everything is in flux which is what he says. I’m not stranger to things always changing, I read up on Buddhism. But stuff like identity is complicated hence why some say that just because it changes doesn’t mean it’s different.

Even then he denies objects so I find your agreement with him rather odd on that one.

That may be hte case. I tend to agree. Its helpful to understand experience (well, to those disposed to get much from it anyway) - not 'the world'. I agree its rather impenetrably, and where it is, there are inconsistencies. (see, this is my giving you a position on the philosophy). — AmadeusD

My main issue is how does this apply to life at large. Because that’s all that matters with philosophy, in that I agree with Buddha.

What I find odd is people trying to liken his stuff to Buddhism when anyone who knows the first thing about would tell you that trying to refer to or describe Anatta is to miss the mark. The self in Buddhism is neither true or false, neither real or unreal.

I don't really have contempt or hate for you or anyone else ultimately. I am frustrated that my questions remain unanswered despite exhausting everything.

You are alternately taking Whitehead too seriously, and not seriously enough. Gnomon has done a fairly good job, but its pricklier than I would have responded having not gone through the thread.
I think, but could be wrong, the most recent and most visible person who pushed Whitehead's process philosophy was Terence McKenna. I probably shouldn't need to say more - while I think McKenna is a much, much better thinker and writer than probably 80% of this forum, there is no chance he is giving us anything with which we could further understand, or build on the philosophy rather than the metaphor/poetry in Whitehead's work. And that's roughly where this form of philosophy has been left. — AmadeusD

It’s sorta hard to regard this well because Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKennas stuff and it’s effectively nonsense.

Unfortunately, the response above this one, posted while I was writing, doesn't give me hope that you will take on board the criticisms many have leveled. That's unfortunate. I came in that hot too and assumed that not hearing what I wanted amounted to being talked past. That is a difficult hurdle to jump. This forum is largely populated (the very consistent posters anyway) with ideological people who spend more time in the politics/news type threads than elsewhere. I wouldn't think this the best place to learn how to do philosophy, or even read discussion clearly. I only joined when i started my degree, and the two have come apart in a rather extreme way. — AmadeusD

This is more about you not about me. Like I said I’m trying to understand this but so far people are really bad at explaining it, and I’ve asked everywhere.

It is not a 'system' the most philosophies are. It is a descriptive philosophy trying to make sense of what Whitehead sees to be 'facts' about how Humans 'become' across time (whcih is, strictly, a fact - we are never stagnant, in any sense of the word, as beings). Every individual change can be (intellectually/metaphorically) compartmentalized, incorporated and subsumed by the 'being' at any given moment. — AmadeusD

Not exactly. I think recent link showed how Whiteheads philosophy fails when attempting to describe human experience especially self and identity. There is also a problem with his “becomes” as it presupposes a thing that exists already. By his own philosophy nothing becomes because nothing exists. As for us never being stagnant, that’s also not true or a fact. By Whiteheads view nothing is dynamic either because nothing would be static. There is also the issue is time and what theory of time would have to be true for his view to work.

So it doesn’t really explain the facts so much as what he wants to be true. That would explain why it never took off, apart from all his papers being burned upon his death.

It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring. — AmadeusD

Not really. It might appear as such but that doesn’t make it so, it also doesn’t explain the static nature of most objects despite them “never being the same”. He claims it’s in line with our intuitions but that’s clearly not the case.

The point is that 'things' are actually 'events' in constant flux of 'occurring' or 'becoming' and not 'objects' to be observed or taken as-is. In this way, change or creative process per se, is a fundamental aspect of reality/existence. He then implicates God in this process as the director, in some sense, but still part of it. So, in some sense this is scientifically obvious, but his theory extends to it being the final analysis which doesn't seem possible. — AmadeusD

Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious (especially since it's not a science question). Matter does exist and so do particles, even if you want to argue for events you’d still need things. I think verbs describe actions nouns take or do, so you can’t really have no elementary particles. Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that. In short process can't be the fundamental nature of reality.

It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others. Even that standford entry explains that a big issue with the philosophy is its lack of application to real life let alone our lives unlike the substance philosophy.

Like I mentioned in my original post, how exactly would daily life look and function under the process view and not the substance view? That's the only question that really matters. It sorta reminds me of why Buddha didn't really answer metaphysical questions, because they weren't relevant to daily life or the path.

Like I said above, just because something is dense and hard to understand doesn’t make it good.

If you would like to share philosophical opinions on interpretations of Whitehead's work, instead of denigrating them, I'm open to continuing this thread. But I suspect that some TPF posters have already been turned-off by the political us-vs-them antagonism. Most of us are not scientists, and don't offer scientific opinions — Gnomon

It’s more like they haven’t been able to answer my questions, which seems to be a running theme with this philosophy.

I took the OP as a sincere attempt to obtain help in understanding the unorthodox philosophical worldview of an acknowledged genius, whose "magnum opus" is over the heads of most of us mortals. But instead of a philosophical dialog, this thread has become a political diatribe, on a work that you admitted you don't understand*1. Ironically, you portray Whitehead as an idiot who didn't understand Quantum Physics in the manner you prefer. And you have haughtily & sarcastically rejected all proffered opinions that don't match the world model that you are looking to support. Of course, Whitehead had little influence on modern Science, because his philosophy is mental (hypothetical) instead of material (pragmatic). — Gnomon

That’s an exaggeration. Just because something is difficult to understand doesn’t make it good or true.

It’s also not “in the manner I prefer” the man died before it evolved to what we know today. He literally didn’t understand it.

It also doesn’t matter if your philosophy is mental or practical, if you can’t get your point across or apply it to life then it’s worthless. That’s ultimately what philosophy is about.

However, at least one poster on Philosophy Stack Exchange seems to share your literalistic mis-understanding of Process Philosophy*3. Pioneering sub-atomic physicists*4 were forced to describe the non-classical paradoxes of quantum physics in terms of metaphors, which those coming from a classical background may interpret literally and materially. FWIW, a human is not "just processes" (on-going life), but also a person (body & mind), worthy of ethical treatment. — Gnomon

Philosophy stack exchange has mostly been disappointing. And no they weren’t “forced to” do anything. These aren’t paradoxes either. It sounds to me like you still don’t understand anything you speak on.

Like…your words are really just hardcore projection and reading into what isn’t there. Your understanding of science and other philosophies are lacking, especially with Natives. There’s not really a conversation to be had with someone who doesn’t even have the basics down. You don’t even read your links at the end.

The way I understand certain “Indian” philosophy (and the eastern ones that are similar to it) is that you can’t talk about it, only experience it. So the fact you, that guy or anyone else is talking about it is just wrong out of the gate. Unless you do it you won’t get it but it’s evident who “gets it” and who doesn’t.

I’ve just tried to understand it but so far no one knows it well enough to explain it, which casts doubt on their understanding of it.

Like I said, you’re just a pretender and your understanding insulting to those you cite. You’re not fooling anyone but you.

That last challenge I think rings loudest because this doesn’t really tie into real life despite what folks here might say. All I’ve really gotta is either insistence or just blaming the person for not getting it.

Naturally that’s more a hole in the philosophy than in one’s understanding of it.

Insofar as it is an a priori categorical framework (i.e. ontological paradigm), a metaphysics might constrain but does not imply an ethics, so it seems to me, Darkneos, you're asking the wrong question. — 180 Proof

Maybe. But that said no one has really been able to explain process philosophy and the last paper I read ended up showing how Whitehead failed

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

You never really explained why, you never explained anything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

"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?

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.

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”.

True! The brain does it.

You got one right. — PoeticUniverse

So then what’s your point then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

"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.