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.

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.

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

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

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

Still doesn't answer my questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which then brings up my earlier questions

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

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

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

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

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

Does a dead brain have a mind? — punos

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, what current evidence is that? — flannel jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can promise that’s not it.

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

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

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

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

Not exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, current evidence would suggest you’re wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

. Werner Heisenberg : “What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning.”
Note --- What we conceive is not necessarily what we perceive. — Gnomon

allegedly. Though QM has come a long way since his time and turn out it doesn't agree with eastern philosophy.

So far my questions haven't really been answered about it.

I'm beginning to see why this philosophy never really took off.