https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
That's what I'm driving at - it is (all) an organic, ecological, holistic process - there are no unconnected realities - there is no mind/body dualism - mind and body are simply - or rather very organically, holistically and complicatedly but nevertheless quite naturally - two aspects of the one reality. — Siti
That synopsis sounds like a summation of the Enformationism worldview. Even what I call Ideality is not an "unconnected reality". It's merely a phase of reality that consists only of ideas (principles & potential, as in mathematical ratios & probability). Plato called it the "realm of Forms". And no need to “abandon physicalism” as the foundation for physical Science. It's only metaphysical philosophical Science that needs a different vocabulary. Mind/Body dualism is merely different expressions of the same fundamental substance : information. We're very close, but you still seem to see something “unconnected to reality” in my worldview.
EMPIRICAL vs MYSTICAL SCIENCE
I've been moving over the last week, and discovered a book I bought several years ago, then never read, because it slipped behind other stuff on the bookshelf. I've only read a few chapters, but I get the impression that it espouses a worldview that you would find similar to the Qualia half of my own BothAnd philosophy. It's entitled The Qualia Revolution, From Quantum Physics to Cosmic Qualia Science, by British philosopher Peter Wilberg. He seems to use the term “qualia” in a sense similar to my own use of “information”. The new revolution he speaks of is what he perceives as a paradigm shift which is turning back the clock on Modern Science --- based on empirical evidence and rational analysis –- toward what I would call a pre-scientific "religious" or "mystical" worldview. He quotes Martin Heidegger, calling Modern Science "the new religion. For in essence it is a gigantic socially-constructed myth". Moreover, he says of the "First Scientific Revolution" : "The myth was a revolution in the most literal sense, for it turned our whole understanding of reality [pre-enlightenment] upside down or on its head. It does so by taking scientific representations of reality -- mathematical symbols and scientific models -- as more real than the consciously experienced phenomena they are used to explain" [my bold]. I too, see an emerging emphasis on Qualia and Metaphysics among scientists, but in addition to, not to the exclusion of, Quanta and Physics.
.
Wilberg's critique is interesting to me primarily because it is diametrically opposed to my own views. He discusses many of the same topics that I address in my blog essays and forum posts --- consciousness, awareness, fields, etc. --- but his vocabulary is foreign to me, partly because he speaks in terms of Phenomenology (subjective sensations) instead of Ontology (objective things). For example, he says, “Cosmic qualia science has its roots in the field-phenomenology of Michael Kosok. Field-phenomenology is distinguished by its recognition that subjectivity or awareness is not a property of a localized subject or 'ego', but has a non-local or field character.” This sounds like Panpsychism, but the term is not in his index. My own version of Panpsychism says that the universal “field” is composed of EnFormAction (energy; power to enform) not Consciousness (awareness).
He also has a notion of God that might sound similar to mine. “Cosmic qualia science is the only framework of scientific thought in which God not only might but must have a place. Qualia theosophy allows us to recognise that God does indeed not exist as any actual being or entity that we can be aware of, but is no less real for that --- being the primordial field of potentiality that is the power behind all actualities. Potentialities, by their very nature, have reality only in awareness. What we call God is 'gnosis' --- a knowing awareness of potentiality that is the source of knowable actualities.” He goes on to assert that “what we call 'energy' is nothing but the 'formative activity' by which this knowing awareness of potentiality is constantly actualized in the form of sensual qualities and perceptual patterns of awareness.”
My problem with these assertions is that they assume humans have two ways of knowing : 1> perception via physical senses, and 2> gnosis via extra-sensory perception. The latter is sometimes called “Intuition” (the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning), but that term is not in his index, so I'm not exactly sure what he means by "gnosis". Likewise, the index includes “Feelings”, but not “Reason”, so you can begin to see where he is coming from by noting omissions. His “field of pure awareness” seems to be accessible only by emotional subjective “feelings”, and not to rational objective “logic”. Since I am not an “emotional person” (no mood swings), I am sometimes accused of being too rational (Vulcan Logic). So, it's possible that I am blind to half the knowledge (the gnosis part) of the whole world. Which would prejudice me against the invisible and intangible aspects of the world (magic & mysticism) that are so important to many others. Am I missing something here, or are they reifying metaphors, and blinded by the smoke & mirrors of deceivers? Are they “unconnected to reality” or am I?
Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
But your thesis and Wilberg's argument both require that such qualia, such colours, necessarily exist - just waiting for the opportunity to be actualized...they are (presumably) un-real-ized potentialities...
That is the "unconnected to reality" bit that I am finding difficulty swallowing. — Siti
Do you have any "un-real-ized potentialities" in your mind? If so, they exist only as ideas until you actualize them. Is there a place in your reality for such ideas about future possibilities? Are ideas in a human mind in a physical world real in any sense? Just because Qualia and Ideas are not reducible to Atoms & Void, are they "unconnected to reality"? (rhetorical question)
Does your worldview have a role for Metaphysics? When we include "Virtual" particles in this expanded Reality, are we guilty of trying to "redefine 'reality' to include things that are patently not real". Far from denying Classical Reality, I am merely expanding the scope of Reality to include Ideas and Qualia, as in the invisible Quantum realm of Reality. I agree with Wilberg and many others that Materialist Science left Qualia behind in its quest for more & more Quanta. I just don't think Qualia give humans the creative powers of gods. They just allow us to be aware of colors that are not in the material stuff out there, but like Beauty, in the mundane subjective mind of the perceiver.
My Ideality merely acknowledges that Ideas and Qualia are non-physical, or not-yet-physical (i.e. metaphysical). They are what Einstein was talking about when he said "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." By "Knowledge", I assume he meant Facts about real actual things. By "Imagination" I assume he was referring to Ideas about currently un-realized possibilities. When I refer to G*D's "knowledge of potentiality, it's no more mysterious than Einstein's imagination, except that G*D's possibilities are backed-up by infinite power to actualize (EnFormAction). Albert had only a fraction of that creativity. Can you swallow Imaginary possibilities (ideas, ideals, universals) as an aspect of Cosmic Reality?
What we call God is 'gnosis' --- a knowing awareness of potentiality that is the source of knowable actualities.” — Gnomon
I can agree that G*D is "gnosis" in that sense, but Wilberg and I part ways when he claims that ordinary humans are capable of god-like Gnosis. We may be more gnostic than animals, but IMHO, even Einstein was not supernaturally imaginative and creative..
That is the "unconnected to reality" bit that I am finding difficulty swallowing. — Siti
Do you have any "un-real-ized potentialities" in your mind? If so, they exist only as ideas until you actualize them. Is there a place in your reality for such ideas about future possibilities? Are ideas in a human mind in a physical world real in any sense? Just because Qualia and Ideas are not reducible to Atoms & Void, are they "unconnected to reality"? (rhetorical question)
Does your worldview have a role for Metaphysics? When we include "Virtual" particles in this expanded Reality, are we guilty of trying to "redefine 'reality' to include things that are patently not real". Far from denying Classical Reality, I am merely expanding the scope of Reality to include Ideas and Qualia, as in the invisible Quantum realm of Reality. I agree with Wilberg and many others that Materialist Science left Qualia behind in its quest for more & more Quanta. I just don't think Qualia give humans the creative powers of gods. They just allow us to be aware of colors that are not in the material stuff out there, but like Beauty, in the mundane subjective mind of the perceiver.
My Ideality merely acknowledges that Ideas and Qualia are non-physical, or not-yet-physical (i.e. metaphysical). They are what Einstein was talking about when he said "Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world." By "Knowledge", I assume he meant Facts about real actual things. By "Imagination" I assume he was referring to Ideas about currently un-realized possibilities. When I refer to G*D's "knowledge of potentiality, it's no more mysterious than Einstein's imagination, except that G*D's possibilities are backed-up by infinite power to actualize (EnFormAction). Albert had only a fraction of that creativity. Can you swallow Imaginary possibilities (ideas, ideals, universals) as an aspect of Cosmic Reality?
What we call God is 'gnosis' --- a knowing awareness of potentiality that is the source of knowable actualities.” — Gnomon
I can agree that G*D is "gnosis" in that sense, but Wilberg and I part ways when he claims that ordinary humans are capable of god-like Gnosis. We may be more gnostic than animals, but IMHO, even Einstein was not supernaturally imaginative and creative..
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
OK - virtual particles are NOT particles that are virtually real, — Siti
The reality of virtual particles is subject to debate among scientists, but my position is that "virtue" is a Quality, not a Quantity. A virtual particle has no physical dimensions and no mass, only potential. Hence, in my vocabulary, it's Ideal, not Real. A photon, which is supposed to be real, is massless, hence no stuff, only potential (energy).
Massless particles : "A virtual particle does not have measurable mass."
https://www.quora.com/Do-virtual-particles-have-mass
My point is not that ideas must be made of atoms, but that an atom cannot be separated from the "idea" of an atom - not my "idea" of an atom, not even a scientific consensus "idea" of an atom but the universe's "idea" of an atom. — Siti
That statement sounds to me like a reference to Plato's Forms. For every Thing, in this case an atom, there is a Form : "the universe's idea of [fill in the blank]". The notion of "disembodied ideas" floating around unconnected to anything, is foreign to me. You seem to interpret my notion of Ideality as a separate place in space. But Ideality and Reality are merely different aspects of the same singular Ultimate Reality, which I call G*D. G*D is not "out there", but everywhere.
Is the metaphysical aspect fundamental or is it co-emergent with the unfolding reality? That's the question. — Siti
I have no way of knowing empirically whether Physics or Metaphysics is more fundamental. But based on my understanding of how Information works in the world, Physics must be an emergent property (qualia) of G*D, who is assumed to be omnipotential. The Big Bang began from nothing physical, only potential : a dimensionless Singularity couldn't possibly contain a whole universe of 3D physical stuff. So, I assume all that stuff was stuffed into the Singularity in the form of dimensionless Information, like a computer code : the idea of the ultimate product. Since generic Information, EnFormAction, is equivalent to Energy, it can cause Matter to emerge even though the Energy per se is immaterial [ref massless photons]. As a rule, scientists tend to regard Energy as a property of matter, but a massless photon lacks the essential property of matter. So, which came first, which is fundamental : the power or the product?
what I can't swallow is ideas, ideals and universals as primordial, creative, pre-cosmic supernaturalistic 'reality'. — Siti
Can you swallow a primordial, creative, pre-Big Bang, super-local-natural Multiverse as a real thing? If our local temporary universe is what we call Nature, then a non-local eternal Multiverse must be by definition Super-Natural. If you can imagine G*D dreaming multiple universes, that would be a crude notion of my Ultimate Reality.
Argument Against Reality : "quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evol ... -20160421/
And I would say that even "God" was not supernaturally imaginative and creative...that, in a nutshell, is where we differ. — Siti
Ontology : If G*D is the known universe, then it must be Natural and Temporal, limited by the laws and conditions of physical Reality. If G*D is the postulated (imaginary) Multiverse, then it must be Super-Natural and Eternal, existing beyond the boundaries of the reality we experience. If the potential for imagination was always inherent in the physical processes of universe creation, then it must be superior in some sense to the collective imagination of a minor world in its ocean of bubble worlds.
PS___To an impartial observer of this dialogue, we may seem to be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
OK - virtual particles are NOT particles that are virtually real, — Siti
The reality of virtual particles is subject to debate among scientists, but my position is that "virtue" is a Quality, not a Quantity. A virtual particle has no physical dimensions and no mass, only potential. Hence, in my vocabulary, it's Ideal, not Real. A photon, which is supposed to be real, is massless, hence no stuff, only potential (energy).
Massless particles : "A virtual particle does not have measurable mass."
https://www.quora.com/Do-virtual-particles-have-mass
My point is not that ideas must be made of atoms, but that an atom cannot be separated from the "idea" of an atom - not my "idea" of an atom, not even a scientific consensus "idea" of an atom but the universe's "idea" of an atom. — Siti
That statement sounds to me like a reference to Plato's Forms. For every Thing, in this case an atom, there is a Form : "the universe's idea of [fill in the blank]". The notion of "disembodied ideas" floating around unconnected to anything, is foreign to me. You seem to interpret my notion of Ideality as a separate place in space. But Ideality and Reality are merely different aspects of the same singular Ultimate Reality, which I call G*D. G*D is not "out there", but everywhere.
Is the metaphysical aspect fundamental or is it co-emergent with the unfolding reality? That's the question. — Siti
I have no way of knowing empirically whether Physics or Metaphysics is more fundamental. But based on my understanding of how Information works in the world, Physics must be an emergent property (qualia) of G*D, who is assumed to be omnipotential. The Big Bang began from nothing physical, only potential : a dimensionless Singularity couldn't possibly contain a whole universe of 3D physical stuff. So, I assume all that stuff was stuffed into the Singularity in the form of dimensionless Information, like a computer code : the idea of the ultimate product. Since generic Information, EnFormAction, is equivalent to Energy, it can cause Matter to emerge even though the Energy per se is immaterial [ref massless photons]. As a rule, scientists tend to regard Energy as a property of matter, but a massless photon lacks the essential property of matter. So, which came first, which is fundamental : the power or the product?
what I can't swallow is ideas, ideals and universals as primordial, creative, pre-cosmic supernaturalistic 'reality'. — Siti
Can you swallow a primordial, creative, pre-Big Bang, super-local-natural Multiverse as a real thing? If our local temporary universe is what we call Nature, then a non-local eternal Multiverse must be by definition Super-Natural. If you can imagine G*D dreaming multiple universes, that would be a crude notion of my Ultimate Reality.
Argument Against Reality : "quantum physicists have to grapple with the mystery of how there can be anything but a first-person reality."
https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-evol ... -20160421/
And I would say that even "God" was not supernaturally imaginative and creative...that, in a nutshell, is where we differ. — Siti
Ontology : If G*D is the known universe, then it must be Natural and Temporal, limited by the laws and conditions of physical Reality. If G*D is the postulated (imaginary) Multiverse, then it must be Super-Natural and Eternal, existing beyond the boundaries of the reality we experience. If the potential for imagination was always inherent in the physical processes of universe creation, then it must be superior in some sense to the collective imagination of a minor world in its ocean of bubble worlds.
PS___To an impartial observer of this dialogue, we may seem to be arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
The problem is that you then go a step further and place God's "primordial nature" beyond reality, you take the "mental" aspect of reality and insist that it must preempt (logically if not temporally) any and all "physical" aspects of reality. — Siti
Yes, the Enformationism thesis does give primacy to the “mental” aspects of the world : consciousness, qualia, etc. To non-scientists, including philosophers, these are the most important “realities” in the world. So, even if it doesn't flip the Materialism paradigm on its head, like Wilberg's Qualia Revolution, it will necessitate a paradigm shift. But, unlike some proponents of Panpsychism, it doesn't attempt to over-ride Physics with Psychics. Any proposed psychic powers will have to show practical results, instead of requiring faith.
A major philosophical problem here is how you define "reality" : either "all-that-is" or "all-that-could-possibly-be". Scientists, for good reason, limit their scope of Reality to the here-and-now --- but make some small allowance for imagining the past & future. Philosophers, for their own reasons, leave their definition of Reality open to all possible times & places : Ontology. So, as a trained professional scientist, your definition is understandable. But, as an amateur philosopher, I am not so constrained. For an Inorganic Chemist, matter is the primary reality, and the mind of the observer is immaterial. But for Quantum Physicists, the material foundations of classical physics have been undermined by the squishy mind/matter nature of the sub-micro-scale foundation of reality.
The "primordial nature" of G*D is, like the existence of a Multiverse, only a hypothesis, since there is no way to directly experience that state before space-time. But both go beyond the physical limits of space-time to mentally imagine an as-if "time before time". For me, it was a logical progression from the Big Bang theory and Quantum Theory. So, the super-natural aspect of G*D was inferred, not from religious myths, but from scientific "facts". Many threads of science are now constructing a picture of ultimate Reality that is actually what I call Ideality. My blog has several examples. In that case, G*D exists, not outside of Nature, but everywhere in Nature. It's just that G*D-nature is more inclusive than Man-nature.
One way to rationalize an extra-real deity is to run the program of evolution in reverse. Astronomers traced the motion of galaxies back to a single point-of-origin of space. As I mentioned before, that hypothesis entails that the Singularity was not a physical container for all the matter in the world. Instead, it could be be something like a capacitor for Cosmic quantities of Energy. But then, for Chemists, Energy is nothing but a Property of Matter. So, if there was no matter in the Singularity, where would the Energy come from? Some imagine a Quantum Field full (?) of Zero-point Energy : i.e. infinite Potential. In place of that mystical notion, I imagine the infinite Potential of EnFormAction, which is both the power to enform (create novelty), and the raw material to sculpt into real things. In that view, Matter is merely a temporary phase of Energy, and Energy is merely a temporary phase of BEING, the power to exist (i.e. G*D). That latter default state of Ultimate Reality is normally outside the purview of empirical Science, but not of theoretical philosophers and theologians.
So, unlike New Ageism and Panpsychism worldviews, mine does not require scientists to “pre-empt” the physical aspects of reality with Orgone energies, or Akashic fields, or Prana Chakras. On the other hand, non-physical scientists --- psychologists, sociologists, etc --- might benefit from taking into account some non-physical aspects of reality, such as Memes, Fuzzy Logic, and Self Image, not to mention Sociobiology, and Superorganisms/Global Minds.
The problem is that you then go a step further and place God's "primordial nature" beyond reality, you take the "mental" aspect of reality and insist that it must preempt (logically if not temporally) any and all "physical" aspects of reality. — Siti
Yes, the Enformationism thesis does give primacy to the “mental” aspects of the world : consciousness, qualia, etc. To non-scientists, including philosophers, these are the most important “realities” in the world. So, even if it doesn't flip the Materialism paradigm on its head, like Wilberg's Qualia Revolution, it will necessitate a paradigm shift. But, unlike some proponents of Panpsychism, it doesn't attempt to over-ride Physics with Psychics. Any proposed psychic powers will have to show practical results, instead of requiring faith.
A major philosophical problem here is how you define "reality" : either "all-that-is" or "all-that-could-possibly-be". Scientists, for good reason, limit their scope of Reality to the here-and-now --- but make some small allowance for imagining the past & future. Philosophers, for their own reasons, leave their definition of Reality open to all possible times & places : Ontology. So, as a trained professional scientist, your definition is understandable. But, as an amateur philosopher, I am not so constrained. For an Inorganic Chemist, matter is the primary reality, and the mind of the observer is immaterial. But for Quantum Physicists, the material foundations of classical physics have been undermined by the squishy mind/matter nature of the sub-micro-scale foundation of reality.
The "primordial nature" of G*D is, like the existence of a Multiverse, only a hypothesis, since there is no way to directly experience that state before space-time. But both go beyond the physical limits of space-time to mentally imagine an as-if "time before time". For me, it was a logical progression from the Big Bang theory and Quantum Theory. So, the super-natural aspect of G*D was inferred, not from religious myths, but from scientific "facts". Many threads of science are now constructing a picture of ultimate Reality that is actually what I call Ideality. My blog has several examples. In that case, G*D exists, not outside of Nature, but everywhere in Nature. It's just that G*D-nature is more inclusive than Man-nature.
One way to rationalize an extra-real deity is to run the program of evolution in reverse. Astronomers traced the motion of galaxies back to a single point-of-origin of space. As I mentioned before, that hypothesis entails that the Singularity was not a physical container for all the matter in the world. Instead, it could be be something like a capacitor for Cosmic quantities of Energy. But then, for Chemists, Energy is nothing but a Property of Matter. So, if there was no matter in the Singularity, where would the Energy come from? Some imagine a Quantum Field full (?) of Zero-point Energy : i.e. infinite Potential. In place of that mystical notion, I imagine the infinite Potential of EnFormAction, which is both the power to enform (create novelty), and the raw material to sculpt into real things. In that view, Matter is merely a temporary phase of Energy, and Energy is merely a temporary phase of BEING, the power to exist (i.e. G*D). That latter default state of Ultimate Reality is normally outside the purview of empirical Science, but not of theoretical philosophers and theologians.
So, unlike New Ageism and Panpsychism worldviews, mine does not require scientists to “pre-empt” the physical aspects of reality with Orgone energies, or Akashic fields, or Prana Chakras. On the other hand, non-physical scientists --- psychologists, sociologists, etc --- might benefit from taking into account some non-physical aspects of reality, such as Memes, Fuzzy Logic, and Self Image, not to mention Sociobiology, and Superorganisms/Global Minds.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
If you were to stop there, we would be in almost complete agreement...and we would both be saying: — Siti
What I enjoy about our dialogs is that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Of course, part of the reason for our mutual broad-mindedness is that neither of us is defending a dogma, or fighting for a faith. Our philosophical views tend to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. And our beliefs are open to reinterpretation.
But what I especially like about dialoging with you, is that you ask good questions. You make me see my ideas in a new light, and force me to justify some of my assumptions. I just this morning was reading a Sherlock Holmes story, The Valley of Fear --- The Tragedy of Birlstone. Ironically, it involves a gun-slinging American in England. When the evidence seems like a tangle of contradictions, Watson asks a question that puts Sherlock on the spot. " There is an appealing directness about your questions", Watson, said Holmes, shaking his pipe at me. "They come at me like bullets." I enjoy dodging your bullets, in the Gunfight at Philosophy Forum*.
* Obscure reference to the old western movie : Gunfight at OK Corral.
PS___Although I think my personal worldview is close to the truth, I must remain somewhat humble, because I could be deceiving myself with self-justifying logic. Paraphrasing Borges, in A Refutation of Time : the Enformationism thesis might be “the reductio ad absurdum of a preterite [outdated] system or, what is worse, the feeble artifice of an [American] lost in the maze of metaphysics”.
What I enjoy about our dialogs is that we can disagree without being disagreeable. Of course, part of the reason for our mutual broad-mindedness is that neither of us is defending a dogma, or fighting for a faith. Our philosophical views tend to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. And our beliefs are open to reinterpretation.
But what I especially like about dialoging with you, is that you ask good questions. You make me see my ideas in a new light, and force me to justify some of my assumptions. I just this morning was reading a Sherlock Holmes story, The Valley of Fear --- The Tragedy of Birlstone. Ironically, it involves a gun-slinging American in England. When the evidence seems like a tangle of contradictions, Watson asks a question that puts Sherlock on the spot. " There is an appealing directness about your questions", Watson, said Holmes, shaking his pipe at me. "They come at me like bullets." I enjoy dodging your bullets, in the Gunfight at Philosophy Forum*.
* Obscure reference to the old western movie : Gunfight at OK Corral.
PS___Although I think my personal worldview is close to the truth, I must remain somewhat humble, because I could be deceiving myself with self-justifying logic. Paraphrasing Borges, in A Refutation of Time : the Enformationism thesis might be “the reductio ad absurdum of a preterite [outdated] system or, what is worse, the feeble artifice of an [American] lost in the maze of metaphysics”.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
The "hard problem" vanishes with the bipolar panexperiential physicalism that I have suggested — Siti
Please give me a brief synopsis of how "the bipolar panexperiential physicalism" softens the hard problem of Metaphysical Consciousness in a Physical Body. That might help to adjust the aim of our dialog, where we keep missing points.
The "hard problem" vanishes with the bipolar panexperiential physicalism that I have suggested — Siti
Please give me a brief synopsis of how "the bipolar panexperiential physicalism" softens the hard problem of Metaphysical Consciousness in a Physical Body. That might help to adjust the aim of our dialog, where we keep missing points.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
David Ray Griffin's book — Siti
Ouch! A hard-cover of Unsnarling the World Knot is listed for $894.90 on Amazon. It's as way-over my budget as Whitehead's "reality" is way-over my head.
but the essential idea is that the actual entities composing reality are "occasions of experience" (a la Whitehead)...little "droplets" (perhaps) of experiential reality — Siti
Several years ago I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality, because it seemed to be aimed in the same direction as my own thesis. But his arcane, abstruse, and abstract terminology was way over my head. Hartshorne was a little better, but I still got lost in the labyrinth, with few landmarks to guide me. Their reference to such entities as "occasions of experience" didn't ring any bells for me. I couldn't fit them into any real-world system that was amenable with my intuitive understanding of the world.
Can you give a real-world example of one of those "little droplets of experience"? What are they made of? If they consist of "experience", whose experience? How would these entities fit into a well-known system such as Information Theory or Quantum Theory? How do they "add-up" to human awareness and feelings? How do they relate to Physics and Metaphysics? In my own thesis, I equate the hierarchy of information transitions --- from energy exchanges to idea communication --- to physical phase changes on a rising scale of complexity and power, eventually forming what I call Metaphysics (mental phenomena).
The notion of "actual entities" seems to imply that there are "potential or virtual entities" to be distinguished from. Are these fundamental elements self-existent, or did they emerge from an even more basic system? How do they relate to space & time? How do they relate to the Big Bang? Are they equivalent to a mathematician's purely abstract "dimensionless point" in empty space. or like a Klein bottle in hyper-space? Rather than numerical abstractions, I need something Qualitative that I can relate to.
The upshot of all this is that the kind of experience we think of as human experience is really no more than a rather complex, (self-)organized composite of the kind of "experience" that simpler aggregates (such as atoms, molecules, cells...etc.) "enjoy". — Siti
In my Enformationism thesis, human ideas and feelings are essentially composites of lower forms of Enformation, such as Energy, but they are also holistic, so the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Are Whitehead's "experiences" like Democritus' atomic theory, unitary physical objects that simply aggregate like sand into sand hills? Or are they like water droplets that integrate into the ocean? Information is like memes that leap from the mind of one organism (person) into many other minds, thereby constituting a super-organism (tribe or nation).
I still don't see how "bipolar panexperiential physicalism" relates to what-it's-like (the experience) to be a conscious being. Sounds like it assumes that physics is inherently conscious, as in Panpsychism, but in much less straightforward language. Hence, one could also assume, without empirical evidence, that the universe as a whole is a thinking, feeling, conscious being. If so, can we "enjoy" an exchange of personal experiences (communicate) with the World Mind? Or must we take his/her/its existence on faith?
David Ray Griffin's book — Siti
Ouch! A hard-cover of Unsnarling the World Knot is listed for $894.90 on Amazon. It's as way-over my budget as Whitehead's "reality" is way-over my head.
but the essential idea is that the actual entities composing reality are "occasions of experience" (a la Whitehead)...little "droplets" (perhaps) of experiential reality — Siti
Several years ago I tried to read Whitehead's Process and Reality, because it seemed to be aimed in the same direction as my own thesis. But his arcane, abstruse, and abstract terminology was way over my head. Hartshorne was a little better, but I still got lost in the labyrinth, with few landmarks to guide me. Their reference to such entities as "occasions of experience" didn't ring any bells for me. I couldn't fit them into any real-world system that was amenable with my intuitive understanding of the world.
Can you give a real-world example of one of those "little droplets of experience"? What are they made of? If they consist of "experience", whose experience? How would these entities fit into a well-known system such as Information Theory or Quantum Theory? How do they "add-up" to human awareness and feelings? How do they relate to Physics and Metaphysics? In my own thesis, I equate the hierarchy of information transitions --- from energy exchanges to idea communication --- to physical phase changes on a rising scale of complexity and power, eventually forming what I call Metaphysics (mental phenomena).
The notion of "actual entities" seems to imply that there are "potential or virtual entities" to be distinguished from. Are these fundamental elements self-existent, or did they emerge from an even more basic system? How do they relate to space & time? How do they relate to the Big Bang? Are they equivalent to a mathematician's purely abstract "dimensionless point" in empty space. or like a Klein bottle in hyper-space? Rather than numerical abstractions, I need something Qualitative that I can relate to.
The upshot of all this is that the kind of experience we think of as human experience is really no more than a rather complex, (self-)organized composite of the kind of "experience" that simpler aggregates (such as atoms, molecules, cells...etc.) "enjoy". — Siti
In my Enformationism thesis, human ideas and feelings are essentially composites of lower forms of Enformation, such as Energy, but they are also holistic, so the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Are Whitehead's "experiences" like Democritus' atomic theory, unitary physical objects that simply aggregate like sand into sand hills? Or are they like water droplets that integrate into the ocean? Information is like memes that leap from the mind of one organism (person) into many other minds, thereby constituting a super-organism (tribe or nation).
I still don't see how "bipolar panexperiential physicalism" relates to what-it's-like (the experience) to be a conscious being. Sounds like it assumes that physics is inherently conscious, as in Panpsychism, but in much less straightforward language. Hence, one could also assume, without empirical evidence, that the universe as a whole is a thinking, feeling, conscious being. If so, can we "enjoy" an exchange of personal experiences (communicate) with the World Mind? Or must we take his/her/its existence on faith?
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
its either all or nothing (although sometimes - often - I might not be acutely aware of seeing it) - it is in that sense that "occasions of experience" are "atomic" - they are not themselves divisible...but they might be nested or overlapping and at our level of experience they almost invariably (if not absolutely always) are. — Siti
The term "occasions of experience" sounds to me like quanta of incoming information. But my personal experience of the world is continuous and constantly changing, while flocks of photons fly into my eyes, and phonons into my ears, and phonemes in my brain.
As you say, " Each moment of a human life is an impossibly tangled web of overlapping, nested and intertwined events - and yet, because of the organismic unity of the human individual, each moment becomes an indivisible occasion in its own right." But, even though a TV screen is a field of pixels, I am not normally aware of those "atoms of experience" myself. So, what makes them atomic? Is an energetic photon a physical quantum of experience? If so, it must be an on/off code that the brain interprets as something or nothing to be aware of. Has anyone hacked the brain system to decode the photon pattern that I experience as red? How does 450 THZ of light become red in the mind? Is it a continuous process, or a sudden transformation?
In my Enformationism thesis I don't worry about such details, because the transformation process is assumed to be continuous from Big Bang to my experience of a red rose. Each "step" is a phase change, but some phases are purely physical (energy to matter), while some "high level" transitions are metaphysical (mental).
I have no idea whether this is helping or hindering your prehension of the idea — Siti
I suppose that of my lack of "prehension" is due to my experience that the Whitehead process seems to be mostly quantitative, while my experience is qualitative. Since I take "Information" (EnFormAction) to be both quanta & qualia --- Energy > Matter > Mind --- there are no gaps in the process from photon to visual chemistry to mental experience. This may be what you mean by "a sequence of physical/mental processes that combined becomes the experience".
In my thesis, the current one-way "sequence" of evolutionary enformation began in the BB and will end in the Big Sigh. But the Source and Origin of the power to be, to know, and to experience, presumably exists eternally in some never-never-land that we have no access to, since our ability to experience is limited by the boundaries of space & time.
its either all or nothing (although sometimes - often - I might not be acutely aware of seeing it) - it is in that sense that "occasions of experience" are "atomic" - they are not themselves divisible...but they might be nested or overlapping and at our level of experience they almost invariably (if not absolutely always) are. — Siti
The term "occasions of experience" sounds to me like quanta of incoming information. But my personal experience of the world is continuous and constantly changing, while flocks of photons fly into my eyes, and phonons into my ears, and phonemes in my brain.
As you say, " Each moment of a human life is an impossibly tangled web of overlapping, nested and intertwined events - and yet, because of the organismic unity of the human individual, each moment becomes an indivisible occasion in its own right." But, even though a TV screen is a field of pixels, I am not normally aware of those "atoms of experience" myself. So, what makes them atomic? Is an energetic photon a physical quantum of experience? If so, it must be an on/off code that the brain interprets as something or nothing to be aware of. Has anyone hacked the brain system to decode the photon pattern that I experience as red? How does 450 THZ of light become red in the mind? Is it a continuous process, or a sudden transformation?
In my Enformationism thesis I don't worry about such details, because the transformation process is assumed to be continuous from Big Bang to my experience of a red rose. Each "step" is a phase change, but some phases are purely physical (energy to matter), while some "high level" transitions are metaphysical (mental).
I have no idea whether this is helping or hindering your prehension of the idea — Siti
I suppose that of my lack of "prehension" is due to my experience that the Whitehead process seems to be mostly quantitative, while my experience is qualitative. Since I take "Information" (EnFormAction) to be both quanta & qualia --- Energy > Matter > Mind --- there are no gaps in the process from photon to visual chemistry to mental experience. This may be what you mean by "a sequence of physical/mental processes that combined becomes the experience".
In my thesis, the current one-way "sequence" of evolutionary enformation began in the BB and will end in the Big Sigh. But the Source and Origin of the power to be, to know, and to experience, presumably exists eternally in some never-never-land that we have no access to, since our ability to experience is limited by the boundaries of space & time.
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p6
Being, knowing and experiencing are necessarily temporal — Siti
Yes. Being is a process. But BEING (the power-to-be) is more like a timeless law or principle. Pragmatic folks take the brute-fact of existence for granted, while theoretical thinkers wonder about "why is there something instead of nothing?"
the ideal 'realm' is necessarily timeless and changeless (but gives no plausible account of how on earth time and change might possibly have emerged from changelessness in no time at all)... — Siti
Nobody knows how or why existence is what it is. But philosophers are free to speculate. The only plausible account of the transition from nothing-to-something requires a prior state of Potential, Possibility, or Probability, which is taken for granted by Statisticians (those who study the static state of what's possible-but-not-actual). I simply include that state under the heading of BEING. The creation of something-from-nothing is a necessary assumption, if nothingness is a viable concept. Is it? If not, why do humans keep dredging-up such nonsense?
There can be no experiential reality without time and change — Siti
Of course. Experience is a process of knowing what's going on. But the power-to-know is a Principle (a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning). And Principles are assumed to be changeless. So in what sense do Principles exist? Are they like universal Forms with local instances?
PS___Our temporal vs timeless assumptions remind me of the differences between Plato's and Aristotle's worldviews *1. Plato postulated a hypothetical unchanging state as the reservoir of eternal Forms. Yet, while Aristotle accepted the notion of Forms, he could not imagine how an inert state of Potential could have any effect on the constantly changing Real World. So, he concluded that the Forms only existed as embodied in real things. And, I agree that the defining pattern of a thing is embodied, but the body is not the pattern.
For example, when I see a furry object wagging it's tail, how do I infer that it's a dog instead of a deer? Although the physical layout is similar, there is an invisible, but unique, pattern of qualities that we associate with dogs-in-general, not with ungulates. Although the physical details differ from one breed to another, we can usually "see" the pattern that connects specific instances (shapes) to the general Form (definition).
*1 Complementary Worldviews : "Plato’s philosophy is abstract and utopian, whereas Aristotle’s is empirical, practical, and commonsensical."
https://www.britannica.com/story/plato- ... hey-differ
Taken together, they cover what's Possible (Ideal) and what's Actual (Real).
Being, knowing and experiencing are necessarily temporal — Siti
Yes. Being is a process. But BEING (the power-to-be) is more like a timeless law or principle. Pragmatic folks take the brute-fact of existence for granted, while theoretical thinkers wonder about "why is there something instead of nothing?"
the ideal 'realm' is necessarily timeless and changeless (but gives no plausible account of how on earth time and change might possibly have emerged from changelessness in no time at all)... — Siti
Nobody knows how or why existence is what it is. But philosophers are free to speculate. The only plausible account of the transition from nothing-to-something requires a prior state of Potential, Possibility, or Probability, which is taken for granted by Statisticians (those who study the static state of what's possible-but-not-actual). I simply include that state under the heading of BEING. The creation of something-from-nothing is a necessary assumption, if nothingness is a viable concept. Is it? If not, why do humans keep dredging-up such nonsense?
There can be no experiential reality without time and change — Siti
Of course. Experience is a process of knowing what's going on. But the power-to-know is a Principle (a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning). And Principles are assumed to be changeless. So in what sense do Principles exist? Are they like universal Forms with local instances?
PS___Our temporal vs timeless assumptions remind me of the differences between Plato's and Aristotle's worldviews *1. Plato postulated a hypothetical unchanging state as the reservoir of eternal Forms. Yet, while Aristotle accepted the notion of Forms, he could not imagine how an inert state of Potential could have any effect on the constantly changing Real World. So, he concluded that the Forms only existed as embodied in real things. And, I agree that the defining pattern of a thing is embodied, but the body is not the pattern.
For example, when I see a furry object wagging it's tail, how do I infer that it's a dog instead of a deer? Although the physical layout is similar, there is an invisible, but unique, pattern of qualities that we associate with dogs-in-general, not with ungulates. Although the physical details differ from one breed to another, we can usually "see" the pattern that connects specific instances (shapes) to the general Form (definition).
*1 Complementary Worldviews : "Plato’s philosophy is abstract and utopian, whereas Aristotle’s is empirical, practical, and commonsensical."
https://www.britannica.com/story/plato- ... hey-differ
Taken together, they cover what's Possible (Ideal) and what's Actual (Real).
Re: Phil Forum : Human Nature : Essentialism
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... tialism/p7
Gnomon - I really don't think I can do this question justice right now...but the essential idea is that the actual entities composing reality are "occasions of experience" (a la Whitehead)...little "droplets" (perhaps) of experiential reality which all interact with one another to a greater or lesser degree depending on the complexity of their "aggregations". Some "aggregations" are just that - e.g. a rock or a solar system - others are organized composite units or organisms - like a human being for example - discrete individuals. — Siti
Although, years ago, I had difficulty following Whitehead's abstract argument in Process and Reality, I could see that he was talking about some of the same concepts that I was beginning to consider in my own thesis of Program and Reality : i.e. Enformationism. For example, the distinction between inert "aggregations" and animated "organisms", is based on the difference between Parts and Wholes. He just used his own unique terminology, such as "occasions of experience" where I coined my own Information-based terms : "Enformy" --- Creativity, which includes converting physical interactions into psychic experiences.
From his analysis of the temporal process of reality, Whitehead concluded that some timeless Eternal Objects (Forms?) must necessarily exist in some sense. And the most fundamental of those EOs is the notion of "World Soul: which he also called "God. Ironically, in order to define "God" in "Anthrodecentric" terms, he had to humanize the deity into an "erotic" experiencer. Yet that physical attribute is not compatible with metaphysical Timelessness or Omnipotence. Which is where his "dipolar" deity differs from mine. Since my G*D is infinite and eternal, S/he must by definition encompass all possibilities. Nevertheless, like ANW's Eternal God, my Enfernal G*D is "Dipolar" : potential for both Good and Evil.
However, since Whitehead was an old man when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, and long dead when the Cosmic Microwave Background evidence was discovered, he assumed that the Real World was eternal. But now that we know the space-time World is not eternal, we must shift our God-paradigm from Natural (within space-time) to Extra-natural (prior to BB). That's because he was correct in his assumption that eternity is the default state of being, but wrong about the eternity of Reality. Therefore, I think an informed ANW would now agree with me that the deity is not simply a "creature of creativity", but the ultimate Creator.
Eternal Objects : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/04/06/ ... s-and-god/
Anthrodecentric : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/08/22/ ... of-a-word/
Dipolar Theism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipolar_theism
Gnomon - I really don't think I can do this question justice right now...but the essential idea is that the actual entities composing reality are "occasions of experience" (a la Whitehead)...little "droplets" (perhaps) of experiential reality which all interact with one another to a greater or lesser degree depending on the complexity of their "aggregations". Some "aggregations" are just that - e.g. a rock or a solar system - others are organized composite units or organisms - like a human being for example - discrete individuals. — Siti
Although, years ago, I had difficulty following Whitehead's abstract argument in Process and Reality, I could see that he was talking about some of the same concepts that I was beginning to consider in my own thesis of Program and Reality : i.e. Enformationism. For example, the distinction between inert "aggregations" and animated "organisms", is based on the difference between Parts and Wholes. He just used his own unique terminology, such as "occasions of experience" where I coined my own Information-based terms : "Enformy" --- Creativity, which includes converting physical interactions into psychic experiences.
From his analysis of the temporal process of reality, Whitehead concluded that some timeless Eternal Objects (Forms?) must necessarily exist in some sense. And the most fundamental of those EOs is the notion of "World Soul: which he also called "God. Ironically, in order to define "God" in "Anthrodecentric" terms, he had to humanize the deity into an "erotic" experiencer. Yet that physical attribute is not compatible with metaphysical Timelessness or Omnipotence. Which is where his "dipolar" deity differs from mine. Since my G*D is infinite and eternal, S/he must by definition encompass all possibilities. Nevertheless, like ANW's Eternal God, my Enfernal G*D is "Dipolar" : potential for both Good and Evil.
However, since Whitehead was an old man when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, and long dead when the Cosmic Microwave Background evidence was discovered, he assumed that the Real World was eternal. But now that we know the space-time World is not eternal, we must shift our God-paradigm from Natural (within space-time) to Extra-natural (prior to BB). That's because he was correct in his assumption that eternity is the default state of being, but wrong about the eternity of Reality. Therefore, I think an informed ANW would now agree with me that the deity is not simply a "creature of creativity", but the ultimate Creator.
Eternal Objects : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/04/06/ ... s-and-god/
Anthrodecentric : https://footnotes2plato.com/2012/08/22/ ... of-a-word/
Dipolar Theism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipolar_theism
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests