/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14117788]

Idealism vs Materialism vs Processism

Which one is right?

[Anonymous No.14117816]

does idealism contradict process philosophy?

[Anonymous No.14117849]

Isn't Processism basically New Materialism or is that something else?

[Anonymous No.14117961]

>>14117849
>>14117816
>2 contradictory replies
Based

[Anonymous No.14117976]

Idealism is completely refuted by the binding problem. How can consciousness project onto the reality if there's no direct evidence of consciousness in the reality?

[Anonymous No.14117986]

>>14117976
>How can consciousness project onto the reality
This isn't what idealism is

[Anonymous No.14118000]

>>14117986
It is though. Read Berkley.

[Anonymous No.14118052]

>>14117788
Processism.

The fundamental substance of reality is actions. Additionally, identity can only be determined when there is another entity to determine it against (this is true, even in an idealistic sense). All meaning is relative and only capable of existing when measured against something else. Wholes are a tool of information entropy, no two entities of the same category are actually alike, and their differences are entirely down the the context of actions that produced the entity being regarded.

>>14117849
It's more like anti-essentialism.

The problem with materialism and physicalism is that they assert the fundamental substance to be this physical thing, matter. We know now that matter is illusory, and plays second fiddle to the real fundamental substance: interactions.

When matter isn't interacting with something, it doesn't exist. Not in a metaphorical sense, but in an actual physical sense. Isn't that cool? Reality is far stranger and more complex than the classical metaphysicists ever could have postulated.

[Anonymous No.14118100]

>>14118052
>fundamental substance of reality is actions
AKA WILL

SCHOPENHAUER WILL ALWAYS BE RIGHT
END GAME OF PHILOSOPHY
BRILLIANT MIND HE WAS

PRAISE SCHOPENHAUER

IT IS ALL WILL

[Anonymous No.14118104]

the philosophy with all three

[Anonymous No.14118121]

>>14118100
Define this

[Anonymous No.14118137]

>>14117788
>oh captain my captain
that frog pic is cute, reminds me of dead poets society

[Anonymous No.14118271]

Objective idealism with a sign-mediated relational ontology. basically not one, but SOME of each of the above.
>The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws.

[Anonymous No.14118396]

Idealism. Read Kastrup.

[Anonymous No.14118448]

>>14118052
>We know now that matter is illusory
That's a weird way to say that a bunch of people think their new concept is correct.
>"Yep, it sure is solved now! That right, we solved reality! Once and for all this time."

[Anonymous No.14118462]

Reality IS matter. It's materially not possible to imagine reality without matter.

[Anonymous No.14118512]

>>14118137

They stand on their desks for a squire sucking up to his lord in verse.

[Anonymous No.14118760]

>>14118462
other way around

[Anonymous No.14118762]

>>14118760
Solve the binding problem then dumb idealist.

[Anonymous No.14118787]

>>14117788
Materialism, I honestly have no clue how one would arrive anywhere else.

[Anonymous No.14118883]

>>14117788
None of them because it's all speculation, materialism is the closest thing to "reality" we have understood so far.

[Anonymous No.14119204]

>>14117976
Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

[Anonymous No.14119305]

>>14119204
yes

[Anonymous No.14119484]

>>14117976
>"consciousness project onto the reality"
What? You don't understand idealism.

[Anonymous No.14120002]

>>14118448
Conclusions derived from verified observational phenomena are not equitable to the musings of a singular man making vague propositions, all of which are based upon observations themselves. Rejection of that which further familiarizes us with things too granular for intuitive perception, when that familiarization is brought through further observation, is a complete non-starter.

>we sure figured reality out this time you guys.
Is the irony here intentional? This is an absolutely retarded and unfounded take. Extensions to our ontological grammar is the only way forward, and the phenomena recorded indicate that the naïve intuitions of classical metaphyics are faulty. But we didn't need to poke at the bare bones of reality to know that. Building eyes more sensitive than eyes only pointed us in the direction of why classical philosophers sucked at describing reality in any more immediacy than their insect-like bodies could perceive.

[Anonymous No.14120013]

>>14117788
processism can't be it because whitehead was retroactively refuted

[Anonymous No.14120239]

>>14118787
Seeing reality made up of events that all relate to one another and constituted by "experience" (experience as in a very general and technical sense ie. two atoms bumping into each other is an experience) is a far more consistent outlook. It really depends what you mean by materialism as well. Like what is deemed as "New Materialism" is pretty consistent with Whitehead's Processism.

[Anonymous No.14120280]

>>14119484
>In contrast to materialism, idealism asserts the primacy of consciousness as the origin and prerequisite of material phenomena. According to this view, consciousness exists before and is the pre-condition of material existence. Consciousness creates and determines the material and not vice versa. Idealism believes consciousness and mind to be the origin of the material world and aims to explain the existing world according to these principles.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Seems like you're the one who needs to do some reading on idealism.

[Anonymous No.14120291]

>>14120239
Two atoms bumping into each other does not constitute an experience under any sensible definition of the term, an experience requires an experiencing subject. Or does Whitehead thinks that atoms are conscious and they can experience each other? That's Leibniz-tier Schizo.

[Anonymous No.14120309]

>>14120291
He's not a panpsychist.

[Anonymous No.14120475]

>>14120309
If you claim that X is conscious, that can either mean that it is literally subject to conscious states of experience, or you are using metaphorical language, in which case you should be able to make your point with the use of literal terms as well. So when you say that one has to "negate those aspects of the activity signified which are peculiar to consciousness and to grasp those more general characteristics which are not properly conscious" you need to specify which exactly are the aspects of conscious activity that are also present in trees, atoms, or whatever, otherwise you are speaking gibberish.

[Anonymous No.14120489]

>>14120475
shut up retard

[Anonymous No.14120512]

>>14118000
It's not, read Kant.

[Anonymous No.14120551]

>>14120489
Don't be a dickhead argument or btfo

[Anonymous No.14121864]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14122348]

That image is so cute

[Anonymous No.14122378]

>>14120280
There is no reality separate from consciousness. Consciousness does not 'project onto reality', it is reality

[Anonymous No.14122574]

>>14122378
Why can't we find consciousness when we cut the brain open then?

[Anonymous No.14122634]

what exactly is the difference between events and substance? what is an event? what is a non-enduring thing?

[Anonymous No.14122636]

>>14122574
There’s these things called “neurons”, dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14122653]

>>14122634
there is no enduring substance/dead matter. no one in the scientific community even holds this brand of materialism, everything is a lot wonkier.

[Anonymous No.14122659]

>>14118052
>identity can only be determined when there is another entity to determine it against
So a=a can be determined iff there is some b from which to distinguish a? It seems that a is identical with itself regardless of having any other thing to distinguish it.
Imagine there is a world with one infinite object which takes up the entirety of space. Would you say that that one infinite object is not identical with itself because there is no other object such to determine that a=a?

[Anonymous No.14122668]

>>14122653
That wasnt what I asked

[Anonymous No.14122685]

>>14122634
are you on reddit? just google substance ontology and process ontology.

[Anonymous No.14122723]

>>14122685
I know the answers. The point of asking was to show that the people who are defending this position cannot explain clearly what it is they mean. It is good practice in any regard.

[Anonymous No.14122734]

>>14122634
>What is an event
In process philosophy, everything is an event. The world is made of events, and nothing but events: happenings rather than things, verbs rather than nouns, processes rather than substances. Becoming is the deepest dimension of Being. Even a seemingly solid and permanent object is an event; or, better, a multiplicity and a series of events, i.e. the particles acting within it.

[Anonymous No.14122743]

>>14122659
If there was a world where there was an infinite object, there wouldn’t be an I to define it as a=a, so yes, it wouldn’t be definable as identical to itself

[Anonymous No.14122886]

>>14122636
Yes, you find neurons when you cut the brain open. Where's the consciousness dumbass.

[Anonymous No.14122889]

>>14122636
There are single-cell animals without any neurons at all, and yet they're more complex than any computer simulation we can make.

[Anonymous No.14122909]

>>14122886
Not him, in the synapsis occurring between them

[Anonymous No.14122926]

>>14122886
Not him, in the synapses occurring between them

[Anonymous No.14123019]

>>14122926
Still not consciousness. A person in deep sleep still have firing in the synapses, yet that person is not conscious.

[Anonymous No.14123075]

>>14123019
Unconsciousness and consciousness are both concepts we give to the manifestation of neurological processes in the brain.

[Anonymous No.14123080]

>>14122574

Because it is not in there?

[Anonymous No.14123087]

>>14117788
Idealism and materialism are diametrical opposites, but how does either contradict processism?

[Anonymous No.14123097]

>>14123075
>implying neurological processes in the brain can happen independently of external material for those processes to interpret
>implying consciousness is some solipsistic domain of a detached Mind instead of a series of dynamic and chaotic interactions down to the sub-atomic level

[Anonymous No.14123103]

>>14123087
this isn’t a very cleverly concealed request for someone to explain what process philosophy is to you

[Anonymous No.14123112]

>>14123075
What's the difference between unconsciousness and consciousness if neurons within the brain of a living human are always firing?

[Anonymous No.14123120]

>>14123103
How is either incompatible with the premise that the only metaphysical permanence is that of becoming? It seems like both can serve as representations of it.

[Anonymous No.14123123]

>>14123087
Idealism=ideas are the fundamental reality
Materialism=matter is the fundamental reality
Processism=events are the fundamental reality

[Anonymous No.14123131]

>>14117788
Processism isn't vs. Processism is "yes, but..." or "yes, and..." the introduction of footnotes to modify a proposition.

Whitehead didn't unequivocally deny substance and permanence, but re-oriented its activities as part of a co-creative dynamic between self-similarity and self-divergence.

[Anonymous No.14123139]

>>14123131
What does concrescence mean?

[Anonymous No.14123146]

>>14123131
Also what is the source of the diagram on the bottom?

[Anonymous No.14123213]

>>14123112
I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but are you asking me what consciousness and unconsciousness mean? Or somehow are you failing to understand what I just said?

[Anonymous No.14123230]

>>14123112
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/neurons-fire-backward-in-sleep/

[Anonymous No.14123235]

>>14123213
I'm challenging your notion that unconsciousness and consciousness inexorably supervene on neurological processes.

[Anonymous No.14123254]

>>14123112
https://singularityhub.com/2017/03/09/are-these-giant-neurons-the-seat-of-consciousness-in-the-brain/

[Anonymous No.14123268]

>>14117788
all of them, because each proves the other

brb going to fap to my own brilliance

[Anonymous No.14123272]

>>14123087
Materialism and Processiam dont necessarily have to contradict each other. Processism is obviously critical of yhe whole "dude everything is dead matter" and "everything is just chemicals in your brain dude" brand of materialism but modern science has moved far away from that. Look into New Materialism.

[Anonymous No.14123295]

Idealism will never be refuted as materialism is completely limited by human knowledge. Science is a continuously evolving subject.
We don't fully understand the 4th dimension and there are higher dimensions being studied right now. Consciousness can't be explained by materialism alone.

[Anonymous No.14123304]

>>14123295
>Consciousness can't be explained by materialism alone.
But it can be... and has been. Modern neuroscience has done just that.

[Anonymous No.14123310]

>>14123304
>Most people unironically believe this.
The species is fucking doomed.

[Anonymous No.14123317]

>>14123310
Not an argument senpai desu

[Anonymous No.14123326]

>>14123304
Where? When?

[Anonymous No.14123331]

>>14123317
>The experience of red is no different than the physical relation between photons and neurons.

[Anonymous No.14123358]

>>14123326
We’ve established that all thinking happens through neurons - a long time ago too.
>>14123331
Define “red”.

[Anonymous No.14123362]

>>14123146
>Also what is the source of the diagram on the bottom?
http://home.earthlink.net/~icedneuron/ProcessPhilosophy.htm

[Anonymous No.14123370]

>>14123358
It's the color the numbers directly above this text are.

[Anonymous No.14123382]

>>14123358
Do you genuinely believe the existence of neurons in the brain completely explains consciousness? Why are scientists still researching and debating this topic today? Supposedly it's already been settled.
I think you need to publish your findings.

[Anonymous No.14123406]

>>14123358
>We’ve established that all thinking happens through neurons - a long time ago too.

This requires a "yes, and..." The "and" part is that of sensory experience of the world. Our cognition cannot be removed from its association from our bodies - not just our brains, not just our nervous systems, but the rest of our body which influences our nervous system. Our bodies in turn cannot be removed from being embodied in the world. As a result of this our cognitive activities aren't confined to the body, but are extended and in co-evolution with the environment.

Moreover, the world (Earth) cannot be removed from the web of mutual influences spanning the entire universe! To truly know a "thing in itself" requires knowing ALL of its relationships between it and everything else that has existed and exists, and also will exist AND will never exist, but can possibly exist (potentiality.) If one requires knowing a "thing in itself" to 100% certainty is required for knowledge at all, then one is stuck in an impossible situation: one must be omniscient to know anything at all. But if perfect knowledge of a "thing in itself" from all possible perspectives isn't required, then one merely needs to understand what they are doing (process) effectively enough to be slightly more effective than randomness, rather than to get the right answer. From this foundation of the slightest epistemological efficacy, additional efficacy in interacting with the world (for the purpose of surviving and thriving) can grow upon this.

[Anonymous No.14123429]

>>14123406
Good point, so is that what processism is?

[Anonymous No.14123448]

>>14123429
In a nutshell, basically. But the nut is the meat, and that takes a lot of attention and inspiration to engage in to fully understand and utilize. The "right answer" doesn't matter, it's understanding what is going on.

[Anonymous No.14123462]

>>14123406
>>14123448
So are processism and idealism in conflict? It also seems like processism and new materialism wouldn't specifically be in conflict either based on what you've said.

[Anonymous No.14123471]

>>14123462
Yes. Processism prioritizes concrete experience over abstraction.

[Anonymous No.14123478]

>>14123471
I see. Is new materialism even a term worth using over processism? Are they distinct enough?

[Anonymous No.14123704]

>>14123075
Isnt that circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.14123726]

>>14123704
Because...?

[Anonymous No.14124183]

>>14122574
You're still treating it like it's a thing IN reality, and not the reality itself.

[Anonymous No.14124298]

Bump

[Anonymous No.14124315]

>>14123406
Based

[Anonymous No.14124343]

>>14122574
Based retard. Go google attention schema theory.

[Anonymous No.14125041]

Buump

[Anonymous No.14125209]

>>14124183
So the reality disappears when you go into deep sleep? Based retard.

[Anonymous No.14125340]

>>14117976
cogito, ergo sum

[Anonymous No.14125360]

>>14125209
Someones consciousness doesn't cease to exist during sleep, it's just inactive.

[Anonymous No.14125637]

>>14123019
Consciousness in the sense of mind is not the same as consciousness in the sense of wakefulness. One word, multiple meanings that are closely related but not really the same.

Unconsciousness (sleeping) is a state of consciousness (mind).

[Anonymous No.14125723]

>>14125360
This is like saying "computation doesn't cease to exist when I turn off my computer, it's just inactive."
Idealists literally confuse their own hot air for reality. Unfortunately they cannot even blow properly.