Within our minds, two hemispheres reside,
The holistic and linear side by side. — PoeticUniverse
That raises the scientific question of how a split brain can produce an integrated worldview. Obviously if you cut the lines of communication (information sharing) the bicameral brain has difficulty navigating for a single body.
Two brain halves, one perception :
Our brain is divided into two hemispheres, which are linked through only a few connections. However, we do not seem to have a problem to create a coherent image of our environment -- our perception is not "split" in two halves. For the seamless unity of our subjective experience, information from both hemispheres needs to be efficiently integrated.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 101430.htm
TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
↪Gnomon
My understanding is the prehemispheric structures solve this problem in humans, and make sets of data from both halves cohere in our perception. I've not looked deeply into it but found that a very interesting suggestion. — AmadeusD
Off Topic :
Does "prehemispheric structures" refer to the pre-frontal cortex? If so, they are also divided into left & right hemispheres, which leaves the coherence (unification) problem unsolved. The paired pre-frontal cortex is supposed to govern much of our conscious behavior. But since the entire cortex, including the frontal parts, is divided & dual, the question of unification remains. Obviously, the brain does somehow resolve dual physical channels into a single conceptual consciousness --- two eyes, one worldview. But how does the cerebral system create a single perspective from binary inputs?
Julian Jayne's theory of the Bicameral Mind*1 postulated that ancient people interpreted intuitive (subconscious) right brain signals as communications from invisible gods to the rational (conscious) left brain. So one way to resolve the two-brain/single-mind conundrum would be to accept that what we call Consciousness occurs only in the Left brain. AFAIK modern science does not seem to support that. Are you aware of any evidence that only one hemisphere is aware of what's going on outside?
*1. Bicameral Brain vs Single-minded consciousness :
Julian Jaynes proposed that early humans operated with a "bicameral" or two-chambered mind, with one part of the brain generating commands that another part perceived as the voice of gods.
This theory suggests that modern consciousness, characterized by introspection and self-awareness, emerged around 3,000 years ago.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ ... ralism.htm
My understanding is the prehemispheric structures solve this problem in humans, and make sets of data from both halves cohere in our perception. I've not looked deeply into it but found that a very interesting suggestion. — AmadeusD
Off Topic :
Does "prehemispheric structures" refer to the pre-frontal cortex? If so, they are also divided into left & right hemispheres, which leaves the coherence (unification) problem unsolved. The paired pre-frontal cortex is supposed to govern much of our conscious behavior. But since the entire cortex, including the frontal parts, is divided & dual, the question of unification remains. Obviously, the brain does somehow resolve dual physical channels into a single conceptual consciousness --- two eyes, one worldview. But how does the cerebral system create a single perspective from binary inputs?
Julian Jayne's theory of the Bicameral Mind*1 postulated that ancient people interpreted intuitive (subconscious) right brain signals as communications from invisible gods to the rational (conscious) left brain. So one way to resolve the two-brain/single-mind conundrum would be to accept that what we call Consciousness occurs only in the Left brain. AFAIK modern science does not seem to support that. Are you aware of any evidence that only one hemisphere is aware of what's going on outside?
*1. Bicameral Brain vs Single-minded consciousness :
Julian Jaynes proposed that early humans operated with a "bicameral" or two-chambered mind, with one part of the brain generating commands that another part perceived as the voice of gods.
This theory suggests that modern consciousness, characterized by introspection and self-awareness, emerged around 3,000 years ago.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/ ... ralism.htm
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
Whitehead describes modern thought as plagued by a “radical inconsistency” which he calls “the bifurcation of nature”.
Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" is due to the bicameral structure of the brain. I assume you are familiar with Julian Jayne's theory of the Bicameral Mind, as an explanation for the ancient notion of voices-in-the-head that conveyed messages from gods. Today, we could call that "communication" Intuition, because we think the brain/mind is unitary.
However, as noted in my response to ↪AmadeusD, we could infer instead that we are literally "of two minds" in some cases. Rational human technology has allowed modern cultures to create un-natural tools & habitats. Which is why, unlike primitive societies, we make a clear distinction between Nature & Culture (Shamanism & Science???). Hence, one result of that "bifurcation" is that logical scientists were able to ignore the Observer (left brain) in their objective picture of the physical world.
Until, that is, we got down to the sub-atomic foundation of reality. And discovered that our Intuitive meaning-making right-brain couldn't make sense --- translate felt-meaning into left-brain language --- of the analytical abstract Rational data it was receiving : e.g. continuous-wave vs discontinuous-particle paradoxes. So, such “radical inconsistency” might be the philosophical problem that forced Whitehead, and others in early 20th century, to adopt a holistic (left & right brain) methodology. Left-brain discovers mathematical relationships, and right-brain creates metaphorical images to make concrete sense of those abstractions.
I'll stop here, before I get my left-brain mired in woo-woo metaphysical non-sense.
Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" is due to the bicameral structure of the brain. I assume you are familiar with Julian Jayne's theory of the Bicameral Mind, as an explanation for the ancient notion of voices-in-the-head that conveyed messages from gods. Today, we could call that "communication" Intuition, because we think the brain/mind is unitary.
However, as noted in my response to ↪AmadeusD, we could infer instead that we are literally "of two minds" in some cases. Rational human technology has allowed modern cultures to create un-natural tools & habitats. Which is why, unlike primitive societies, we make a clear distinction between Nature & Culture (Shamanism & Science???). Hence, one result of that "bifurcation" is that logical scientists were able to ignore the Observer (left brain) in their objective picture of the physical world.
Until, that is, we got down to the sub-atomic foundation of reality. And discovered that our Intuitive meaning-making right-brain couldn't make sense --- translate felt-meaning into left-brain language --- of the analytical abstract Rational data it was receiving : e.g. continuous-wave vs discontinuous-particle paradoxes. So, such “radical inconsistency” might be the philosophical problem that forced Whitehead, and others in early 20th century, to adopt a holistic (left & right brain) methodology. Left-brain discovers mathematical relationships, and right-brain creates metaphorical images to make concrete sense of those abstractions.
I'll stop here, before I get my left-brain mired in woo-woo metaphysical non-sense.
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
Brain stem structures, is my understanding - the nerve bundles prior to the hemispheres of the brain around the top of the spinal column and 'bottom' the brain. I see subhemispheric is also used: — AmadeusD
Still off-topic :
"Brain sensorium" is the term I found for a physical place to combine multi-channel (visual, olfactory, auditory, and tactile) signals into a single stream of sensation, that may eventually provoke multiple meanings : hot + ouch!. But it seems to be a primitive organ that we share with most animals. When the incoming multi-source physical sensations are not properly directed to centralized mental consciousness, the result may be Synesthesia, where the person becomes aware of Color in-place-of-or-in-addition-to Sound. But the cognitive verbal awareness seems to happen somewhere else.
Therefore individual incoming sensations and their whole-self meaning --- danger or opportunity --- remain separate, until merged into a single significance for Me, Myself, and my Soul. But where? Descartes, and other spiritual traditions, postulated the locus of that Sentient Soul (mind's eye) at the center of the brain in the Pineal Gland. But modern biology has a more mundane (melatonin) function for for that organ. Did Whitehead discuss the brain's role in doing Analytical/Reductive science versus Complementary/Holistic philosophy?
Anyway, I'm philosophically intrigued by the Split Brain notion*1, in which a person seems to function normally, even when hemispheres are dis-connected. So how are their analytical/holistic functions --- physical sensations (percepts ; feelings) and conscious awareness (concepts ; meanings) --- merged into a viable person with normal left-hand / right-hand motor control? Is there a Functional Nexus in addition to the physical inter-connection?
Apparently, when the logical Left Brain and emotional Right Brain are not integrated into a whole percept/concept package, the person may experience the world differently, but cannot accurately describe what's wrong. In some cases, the physical sensations may be experienced as non-verbal Feelings & Images, and mental words to express those feelings only come later, or with difficulty. Have you ever come across Psychedelia users who experience complex/unreal feelings that they can't put into words*2?
Could the drugs be revealing the primitive bicameral brain/mind that Jaynes was talking about? If so, then a unified brain/mind might be a recent evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to focus on both whole & part at the same time. Thus, producing a unification of five senses & a single integrated self-consciousness. But can we also voluntarily or chemically shut-down one half of the brain, while still functioning as a unique person?
*1. Split-brain, Single Mind :
No, there is no evidence that split-brain patients have two minds. Instead, they appear to have a unified consciousness, even though the hemispheres of their brain are not communicating.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +two+minds
*2. Psychedelics induce intense modifications in the sensorium, the sense of "self," and the experience of reality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25820842/
Still off-topic :
"Brain sensorium" is the term I found for a physical place to combine multi-channel (visual, olfactory, auditory, and tactile) signals into a single stream of sensation, that may eventually provoke multiple meanings : hot + ouch!. But it seems to be a primitive organ that we share with most animals. When the incoming multi-source physical sensations are not properly directed to centralized mental consciousness, the result may be Synesthesia, where the person becomes aware of Color in-place-of-or-in-addition-to Sound. But the cognitive verbal awareness seems to happen somewhere else.
Therefore individual incoming sensations and their whole-self meaning --- danger or opportunity --- remain separate, until merged into a single significance for Me, Myself, and my Soul. But where? Descartes, and other spiritual traditions, postulated the locus of that Sentient Soul (mind's eye) at the center of the brain in the Pineal Gland. But modern biology has a more mundane (melatonin) function for for that organ. Did Whitehead discuss the brain's role in doing Analytical/Reductive science versus Complementary/Holistic philosophy?
Anyway, I'm philosophically intrigued by the Split Brain notion*1, in which a person seems to function normally, even when hemispheres are dis-connected. So how are their analytical/holistic functions --- physical sensations (percepts ; feelings) and conscious awareness (concepts ; meanings) --- merged into a viable person with normal left-hand / right-hand motor control? Is there a Functional Nexus in addition to the physical inter-connection?
Apparently, when the logical Left Brain and emotional Right Brain are not integrated into a whole percept/concept package, the person may experience the world differently, but cannot accurately describe what's wrong. In some cases, the physical sensations may be experienced as non-verbal Feelings & Images, and mental words to express those feelings only come later, or with difficulty. Have you ever come across Psychedelia users who experience complex/unreal feelings that they can't put into words*2?
Could the drugs be revealing the primitive bicameral brain/mind that Jaynes was talking about? If so, then a unified brain/mind might be a recent evolutionary adaptation that allowed humans to focus on both whole & part at the same time. Thus, producing a unification of five senses & a single integrated self-consciousness. But can we also voluntarily or chemically shut-down one half of the brain, while still functioning as a unique person?
*1. Split-brain, Single Mind :
No, there is no evidence that split-brain patients have two minds. Instead, they appear to have a unified consciousness, even though the hemispheres of their brain are not communicating.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... +two+minds
*2. Psychedelics induce intense modifications in the sensorium, the sense of "self," and the experience of reality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25820842/
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
"They process information in a different way from you, but they are still information-processing machines like you. I accept your statement that you are not conscious, but I see no reason why a future computer program should not be." . . . . .
All of what makes us human are probably the processes of our brain and our body, and if those processes are replicated in a completely different substrate, it's completely possible that the *internal reality* of subjective experience would also be replicated therein. — flannel jesus
Thanks for that information. Since I'm not constrained by the Genesis story of Creation, I can imagine that the Process of Evolution could continue in non-biological substrates, and non-natural (artificial) systems. What matters is not the Matter, but the inter-relations and patterns of Processing : e.g. a Turing machine. I'm not as sanguine as Kurzweil that the "Singularity is Near". I'm open to that possibility of a second Genesis, but probably not in my lifetime.
I suppose that AI must have some kind of self-concept*1 in order to have a conversation like the one you linked. The AI vocabulary must include some definition of "you" and "me". Besides the nouns, a sentient AI would need a multi-dimensional kind of Information Processing (e.g. feedback loops), rather than our primitive linear digital computers. And I suppose that a self-concept is a minimum requirement for general awareness.
*1. I am a strange loop :
"I" is a consequence of the brain's ability to monitor itself, together with its computational inability to process fully detailed descriptions of itself. He connects this "strange loop" of self-reference to the notion of emergence, to Godel's famous incompleteness result and to Escher's drawings - hence his title. . . . . Hofstadter essentially equates the "I" with self, consciousness, and with soul.
https://www.jasss.org/10/3/reviews/doran.html
All of what makes us human are probably the processes of our brain and our body, and if those processes are replicated in a completely different substrate, it's completely possible that the *internal reality* of subjective experience would also be replicated therein. — flannel jesus
Thanks for that information. Since I'm not constrained by the Genesis story of Creation, I can imagine that the Process of Evolution could continue in non-biological substrates, and non-natural (artificial) systems. What matters is not the Matter, but the inter-relations and patterns of Processing : e.g. a Turing machine. I'm not as sanguine as Kurzweil that the "Singularity is Near". I'm open to that possibility of a second Genesis, but probably not in my lifetime.
I suppose that AI must have some kind of self-concept*1 in order to have a conversation like the one you linked. The AI vocabulary must include some definition of "you" and "me". Besides the nouns, a sentient AI would need a multi-dimensional kind of Information Processing (e.g. feedback loops), rather than our primitive linear digital computers. And I suppose that a self-concept is a minimum requirement for general awareness.
*1. I am a strange loop :
"I" is a consequence of the brain's ability to monitor itself, together with its computational inability to process fully detailed descriptions of itself. He connects this "strange loop" of self-reference to the notion of emergence, to Godel's famous incompleteness result and to Escher's drawings - hence his title. . . . . Hofstadter essentially equates the "I" with self, consciousness, and with soul.
https://www.jasss.org/10/3/reviews/doran.html
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
His term for this incoherence is ‘bifurcation of nature’, for the question of how these two concepts of nature—‘objective’ and ‘subjective’—relate to each other remains largely unresolved for Whitehead within the philosophical tradition of modernity. — Wayfarer
Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" a few centuries ago resulted from the maturation of the Bicameral Brain ; especially the objective language & math hemisphere. The subjective creative & feeling Right Brain has been described as the Animal Brain*1, primarily because it seems to lack the abstracting functions of the human mind. Apparently, most animals survive mainly with instinctive & intuitive thinking. But humans have developed a talent for processing abstracted concepts (ideas) that can be analyzed in more detail (logic).
Unfortunately, this modern narrow-focusing ability (reason) has evolved to the point of overshadowing the broader more Holistic aspects of brain function. Yet, I doubt that Whitehead, as a lefty mathematician, would want to lose the right brain talent for reasoning, as we seek to recover our fading natural instincts & intuitions & feelings. Modern culture has pushed Nature into the background, allowing us to mentally adapt to our man-made un-natural environment. But our bodies don't evolve quite as fast as our minds. So, we are now vulnerable to some aspects of nature that animals take in stride.
BTW. You seem to have a holistic brain. Are you left-handed, or ambidextrous?*2
*1. Animal Brain :
The right side of the brain is often associated with the animalistic part of the brain, which is involved in processing fear, aggression, and affection.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... nimal+mind
*2. Bifurcation of attention :
"We are the master of our hands, and by funneling this training to one hemisphere of our brains, we can become more proficient at that kind of dexterity." Natural selection likely provided an advantage that resulted in a proportion of the population -- about 10% -- favoring the opposite hand. The thing that connects the two is parallel processing, which enables us to do two things that use different parts of the brain at the same time.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131801.htm
Perhaps the "bifurcation of nature" a few centuries ago resulted from the maturation of the Bicameral Brain ; especially the objective language & math hemisphere. The subjective creative & feeling Right Brain has been described as the Animal Brain*1, primarily because it seems to lack the abstracting functions of the human mind. Apparently, most animals survive mainly with instinctive & intuitive thinking. But humans have developed a talent for processing abstracted concepts (ideas) that can be analyzed in more detail (logic).
Unfortunately, this modern narrow-focusing ability (reason) has evolved to the point of overshadowing the broader more Holistic aspects of brain function. Yet, I doubt that Whitehead, as a lefty mathematician, would want to lose the right brain talent for reasoning, as we seek to recover our fading natural instincts & intuitions & feelings. Modern culture has pushed Nature into the background, allowing us to mentally adapt to our man-made un-natural environment. But our bodies don't evolve quite as fast as our minds. So, we are now vulnerable to some aspects of nature that animals take in stride.
BTW. You seem to have a holistic brain. Are you left-handed, or ambidextrous?*2
*1. Animal Brain :
The right side of the brain is often associated with the animalistic part of the brain, which is involved in processing fear, aggression, and affection.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... nimal+mind
*2. Bifurcation of attention :
"We are the master of our hands, and by funneling this training to one hemisphere of our brains, we can become more proficient at that kind of dexterity." Natural selection likely provided an advantage that resulted in a proportion of the population -- about 10% -- favoring the opposite hand. The thing that connects the two is parallel processing, which enables us to do two things that use different parts of the brain at the same time.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 131801.htm
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
The description below is my own model for how virtual particles become actual particles, as a continuous process. We don't need a Big Bang to create the matter in the universe. I don't have a name for it yet, maybe "Continuous Creation Model", or maybe you can suggest one — punos
The Virtual/Actual Particle process is over my head. But for my own philosophical purposes, I substitute "Potential" in place of "Virtual". Potential could refer to Plato's eternal realm of Forms, for which we have no empirical evidence. But Virtual refers to Vacuum Energy*1, for which we also have no empirical evidence, only mathematical theories & speculative inference. So, either way, we are shooting in the dark.
Fred Hoyle, who scoffed at the notion of "Big Bang" instantaneous creation, offered his own conjecture of Continuous Creation*2. But the infinite source of that energy & matter must also be Virtual (hence unobservable), and taken on faith. Ironically, Continuous Creation has also been interpreted as an alternative method for divine creation*3, that is more like Continuous Evolution.
Personally, my amateur cosmology combines elements of both. The Bang "Singularity" was a seed of eternal-infinite Potential (Platonic Form ; divine creative power???), which became the source for our limited supply of space-time Energy (first law of thermodynamics), but which continually changes Form from Causation to Matter & back again, producing the continual creation that we call Evolution. But, I suppose your guess is as good as mine.
*1. The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the substantial disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density, and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologi ... nt_problem
*2. Continuous Creation theory rejected :
The steady state theory was a popular alternative to the Big Bang theory from the 1940s to the 1960s.
However, most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers now reject the steady state theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ion+theory
*3. Moltmann has developed a doctrine of creation that emphasizes God’s continuous creation activity throughout history.
https://biologos.org/articles/jurgen-mo ... s-creation
Options
The Virtual/Actual Particle process is over my head. But for my own philosophical purposes, I substitute "Potential" in place of "Virtual". Potential could refer to Plato's eternal realm of Forms, for which we have no empirical evidence. But Virtual refers to Vacuum Energy*1, for which we also have no empirical evidence, only mathematical theories & speculative inference. So, either way, we are shooting in the dark.
Fred Hoyle, who scoffed at the notion of "Big Bang" instantaneous creation, offered his own conjecture of Continuous Creation*2. But the infinite source of that energy & matter must also be Virtual (hence unobservable), and taken on faith. Ironically, Continuous Creation has also been interpreted as an alternative method for divine creation*3, that is more like Continuous Evolution.
Personally, my amateur cosmology combines elements of both. The Bang "Singularity" was a seed of eternal-infinite Potential (Platonic Form ; divine creative power???), which became the source for our limited supply of space-time Energy (first law of thermodynamics), but which continually changes Form from Causation to Matter & back again, producing the continual creation that we call Evolution. But, I suppose your guess is as good as mine.
*1. The cosmological constant problem or vacuum catastrophe is the substantial disagreement between the observed values of vacuum energy density, and the much larger theoretical value of zero-point energy suggested by quantum field theory. .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologi ... nt_problem
*2. Continuous Creation theory rejected :
The steady state theory was a popular alternative to the Big Bang theory from the 1940s to the 1960s.
However, most cosmologists, astrophysicists, and astronomers now reject the steady state theory.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ion+theory
*3. Moltmann has developed a doctrine of creation that emphasizes God’s continuous creation activity throughout history.
https://biologos.org/articles/jurgen-mo ... s-creation
Options
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
I think that as knowledge increases, humanity will come to understand that not all things need to be proven empirically. We will learn that logical structures below what cannot be empirically observed must exist in some latent or Platonic form, and that these hidden logical structures must be of a certain form to yield the forms that we can see or detect empirically. — punos
Yes. The logical structure of our cosmos is not something that can be detected objectively & empirically*1. It must be inferred rationally or intuitively. For example, Ramanujan*2, a math prodigy, was not formally trained in higher math. Solutions to problems seemed to just come to him as-if an answer to prayer. Ironically, he attributed his genius (attendant spirit) to a Hindu goddess. Plato's Logos (divine reason) may have played a similar role in his philosophy. I suppose the implicit spirituality of Plato's worldview may have made pragmatic Aristotle uncomfortable, as it does for modern Empiricists.
Mathematical and Geometric principles may seem to be "hidden" from us non-geniuses, but over many centuries, humans have learned that Nature has an invisible logical structure (proportion). In my personal philosophical worldview, Logos*3 is also associated with the dynamic process of Causation. Perhaps, it was Whitehead's genius that revealed to him the importance of Process in an evolving world of material things (appearances). However, for the practical purposes of Science (progress), empirical evidence is necessary to reveal the flesh on those logical bones.
*1. Most people, mathematicians and others, will agree that mathematics is not an empirical science, or at least that it is practiced in a manner which differs in several decisive respects from the techniques of the empirical sciences. And, yet, its development is very closely linked with the natural sciences.
___ John von Neumann
https://prclare.people.wm.edu/m150f19/vonNeumann.pdf
*2. Ramanujan had developed tremendous intuition; he would say devoutly, it was immanent guidance provided by his local Hindu deity, Goddess Nammakal, a relative of Lakshmi (a goddess spirit of generosity and provision).
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Ramanujan ... swer-based
*3. Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Yes. The logical structure of our cosmos is not something that can be detected objectively & empirically*1. It must be inferred rationally or intuitively. For example, Ramanujan*2, a math prodigy, was not formally trained in higher math. Solutions to problems seemed to just come to him as-if an answer to prayer. Ironically, he attributed his genius (attendant spirit) to a Hindu goddess. Plato's Logos (divine reason) may have played a similar role in his philosophy. I suppose the implicit spirituality of Plato's worldview may have made pragmatic Aristotle uncomfortable, as it does for modern Empiricists.
Mathematical and Geometric principles may seem to be "hidden" from us non-geniuses, but over many centuries, humans have learned that Nature has an invisible logical structure (proportion). In my personal philosophical worldview, Logos*3 is also associated with the dynamic process of Causation. Perhaps, it was Whitehead's genius that revealed to him the importance of Process in an evolving world of material things (appearances). However, for the practical purposes of Science (progress), empirical evidence is necessary to reveal the flesh on those logical bones.
*1. Most people, mathematicians and others, will agree that mathematics is not an empirical science, or at least that it is practiced in a manner which differs in several decisive respects from the techniques of the empirical sciences. And, yet, its development is very closely linked with the natural sciences.
___ John von Neumann
https://prclare.people.wm.edu/m150f19/vonNeumann.pdf
*2. Ramanujan had developed tremendous intuition; he would say devoutly, it was immanent guidance provided by his local Hindu deity, Goddess Nammakal, a relative of Lakshmi (a goddess spirit of generosity and provision).
https://www.quora.com/How-did-Ramanujan ... swer-based
*3. Logos :
In Enformationism, it is the driving force of Evolution, Logos is the cause of all organization, and of all meaningful patterns in the world. It’s not a physical force though, but a metaphysical cause that can only be perceived by Reason, not senses or instruments.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page14.html
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
The fundamental unit of reality in process is an "event" or "occasion" which is. a spatial temporal entity with both physical and experiential poles (or aspects). This is largely non conscious experience which falls under Whitehead's term prehension. One could consider this a particular form of neutral monism. — prothero
Thanks for the summary. Since I had no training in philosophy, Whitehead's book was way over my head (20 years ago), due in part to his unfamiliar terminology. In the almost 10 years I've been posting on this forum, my vocabulary has expanded. However, to understand what he was talking about, you'd have to understand some of the peculiarities of quantum physics. And you'd also need to think outside the box of scientific materialism.
Just as quantum "particles" can be interpreted as bits of matter, they can also be viewed as moments in time, or as sometimes expressed : wave peaks in an ocean of turbulent energy. So, what he called an "occasion" is a snapshot of an ongoing process, not a stable material object. As you put it, an occasion may be understood as a "spatial-temporal entity", sort of a lump of space-time. And, like much of Quantum Physics and Process Philosophy, that sounds paradoxical to our normal notions of reality.
I was not familiar with the term "Neutral Monism"*1, so I Googled it. The links below suggest an intermediate form of reality between the Mind of Idealism and the Matter of Materialism. I'll have to take some time to work the notion of Space-Time-Ideal-Materialism into my personal worldview. But it sounds compatible with my BothAnd philosophy*2.
On this forum, calm rational philosophical dialogues often break-down into passionate political debates, generally between the ideologies of Materialism and Idealism. So Neutral Monism might be a moderate position between those polar opposite positions. Do you think Whitehead was postulating a worldview that combined both philosophical Idealism and scientific Materialism into a Neutral Monism?
*1a. Neutral monism is a philosophical theory that proposes that reality is made of a neutral entity, rather than mind or matter. It's a way of explaining how the mind and matter relate to each other.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ral+monism.
*1b. Neutral monism is an umbrella term for a class of metaphysical theories in the philosophy of mind, concerning the relation of mind to matter. These theories take the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Thanks for the summary. Since I had no training in philosophy, Whitehead's book was way over my head (20 years ago), due in part to his unfamiliar terminology. In the almost 10 years I've been posting on this forum, my vocabulary has expanded. However, to understand what he was talking about, you'd have to understand some of the peculiarities of quantum physics. And you'd also need to think outside the box of scientific materialism.
Just as quantum "particles" can be interpreted as bits of matter, they can also be viewed as moments in time, or as sometimes expressed : wave peaks in an ocean of turbulent energy. So, what he called an "occasion" is a snapshot of an ongoing process, not a stable material object. As you put it, an occasion may be understood as a "spatial-temporal entity", sort of a lump of space-time. And, like much of Quantum Physics and Process Philosophy, that sounds paradoxical to our normal notions of reality.
I was not familiar with the term "Neutral Monism"*1, so I Googled it. The links below suggest an intermediate form of reality between the Mind of Idealism and the Matter of Materialism. I'll have to take some time to work the notion of Space-Time-Ideal-Materialism into my personal worldview. But it sounds compatible with my BothAnd philosophy*2.
On this forum, calm rational philosophical dialogues often break-down into passionate political debates, generally between the ideologies of Materialism and Idealism. So Neutral Monism might be a moderate position between those polar opposite positions. Do you think Whitehead was postulating a worldview that combined both philosophical Idealism and scientific Materialism into a Neutral Monism?
*1a. Neutral monism is a philosophical theory that proposes that reality is made of a neutral entity, rather than mind or matter. It's a way of explaining how the mind and matter relate to each other.
https://www.google.com/search?client=fi ... ral+monism.
*1b. Neutral monism is an umbrella term for a class of metaphysical theories in the philosophy of mind, concerning the relation of mind to matter. These theories take the fundamental nature of reality to be neither mental nor physical; in other words it is "neutral".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_monism
*3. Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Re: TPF : Process Philosophy -- a metaphysics for our time
I would not want to get too tied up trying to summarize something like process philosophy with as simple a summary or term as "neutral monism". . . . .
Process is neither materialism nor idealism. — prothero
I can understand your wish to avoid trivializing all-encompassing Process Philosophy with a single ambiguous concept. But my interest in the novel notion of "Neutral Monism" is that it seems to fit into my own personal (idiosyncratic & unorthodox) philosophical worldview : Enformationism. In which the single Substance of our world --- (both physical and metaphysical) --- is EnFormAction (the power to enform or transform). Remember, tangible Matter is, according to Einstein, merely a temporary form of the processing power of Energy.
I won't try to fully explain that ambiguous dual-monism concept in a brief forum post. But it's a combination of both Idealism and Materialism under a single name : EnFormAction*1. Admittedly, it sounds like an oxymoron, if the reasoning underlying the term is misunderstood. If you merge Idealism (mind stuff) and Materialism (body stuff) into a monistic worldview, what you get is a Neutral Monism : neither Real nor Ideal, but both Matter and Mind. When you add the current scientific understanding that Generic Information*2 is both mental content and energy/matter, the mash-up term may begin to make sense.
The concept of EnFormAction was derived from a combination of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. In the so-called "New Physics", the subatomic foundation of reality is both material object (particle) and dynamic process (wave propagation). The objective particle fits into the worldview of Materialism, and the subjective process seems to be closer to Idealism. So, the associated philosophical worldview is a BothAnd*3 perspective of our reality, as revealed by both materialistic Science, and idealistic Philosophy.
If this introduction sounds like gobbledygook to you, just ignore it, and I'll end it here. But if you can see some similarity to the Whiteheadian worldview, I can get into further detail, and get more feedback from you. But it will take the thread further off-topic, and might work better as a new thread.
*1. EnFormAction : A reformulation of the word "Information" (mind stuff).
Physical Energy + Mental Form + Causal Processing Action = Evolving Reality (matter & mind)
*2. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ ... 58-40862-6
*3. Both/And Principle :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Process is neither materialism nor idealism. — prothero
I can understand your wish to avoid trivializing all-encompassing Process Philosophy with a single ambiguous concept. But my interest in the novel notion of "Neutral Monism" is that it seems to fit into my own personal (idiosyncratic & unorthodox) philosophical worldview : Enformationism. In which the single Substance of our world --- (both physical and metaphysical) --- is EnFormAction (the power to enform or transform). Remember, tangible Matter is, according to Einstein, merely a temporary form of the processing power of Energy.
I won't try to fully explain that ambiguous dual-monism concept in a brief forum post. But it's a combination of both Idealism and Materialism under a single name : EnFormAction*1. Admittedly, it sounds like an oxymoron, if the reasoning underlying the term is misunderstood. If you merge Idealism (mind stuff) and Materialism (body stuff) into a monistic worldview, what you get is a Neutral Monism : neither Real nor Ideal, but both Matter and Mind. When you add the current scientific understanding that Generic Information*2 is both mental content and energy/matter, the mash-up term may begin to make sense.
The concept of EnFormAction was derived from a combination of Quantum Physics and Information Theory. In the so-called "New Physics", the subatomic foundation of reality is both material object (particle) and dynamic process (wave propagation). The objective particle fits into the worldview of Materialism, and the subjective process seems to be closer to Idealism. So, the associated philosophical worldview is a BothAnd*3 perspective of our reality, as revealed by both materialistic Science, and idealistic Philosophy.
If this introduction sounds like gobbledygook to you, just ignore it, and I'll end it here. But if you can see some similarity to the Whiteheadian worldview, I can get into further detail, and get more feedback from you. But it will take the thread further off-topic, and might work better as a new thread.
*1. EnFormAction : A reformulation of the word "Information" (mind stuff).
Physical Energy + Mental Form + Causal Processing Action = Evolving Reality (matter & mind)
*2. Information is Energy :
An objective, dynamic and physically justified concept of information is elaborated starting from Shannon's concept of entropy and applied to information technology, artificial intelligence (consciousness) and thermodynamics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/ ... 58-40862-6
*3. Both/And Principle :
Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
https://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests