/sci/ - Science & Math

We can't explain it using scientific evidence, but we can attempt to describe the processes philosophically and contribute that to the whole of evidence.

>The occasions of experience are of four grades. The first grade comprises processes in a physical vacuum such as the propagation of an electromagnetic wave or gravitational influence across empty space. The occasions of experience of the second grade involve just inanimate matter; "matter" being the composite overlapping of occasions of experience from the previous grade. The occasions of experience of the third grade involve living organisms. Occasions of experience of the fourth grade involve experience in the mode of presentational immediacy, which means more or less what are often called the qualia of subjective experience. So far as we know, experience in the mode of presentational immediacy occurs in only more evolved animals. That some occasions of experience involve experience in the mode of presentational immediacy is the one and only reason why Whitehead makes the occasions of experience his actual entities; for the actual entities must be of the ultimately general kind. Consequently, it is inessential that an occasion of experience have an aspect in the mode of presentational immediacy; occasions of the grades one, two, and three, lack that aspect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy

>>12710120
Demanding that the procedure used to get results should be communicated, i.e. should be aka "every proof ever", is indeed paternalism.

>>12709670
Best.
>>12709629
>that you can't keep asking "why?" forever.
You can, but the basic good are reasons with no further reasons. I can see how lacking that understanding could lead to a schizoid condition, and how failing to grasp the reason of basic good could lead to schizophrenia.
>>12709705
Technically this. "Energy" is abstract. Pressure mediation - "changes in energy" - is concrete.

>>12709676
That is only within a presupposition of classic ontology - scientific materialism. We are not slaves to 'physics', as physics is an abstract concept - not concrete. Actual physical things are what is concrete.

But does 'physics' have physical effect? Yes, to the extent that your organism is shaped by abstractions. Can we mold them? Yes, with vast prehensive potentials for creativity.

>Thus an electron within a living body is different from an electron outside it, by reason of the plan of the body; the electron blindly runs either within or without the body; but it runs within the body in accordance with its character within the body; that is to say, in accordance with the general plan of the body, and this plan includes the mental state. -Alfred North Whitehead

Does 'matter' have a 'mental state'? No, but in Whitehead's Process Ontology actual entities are dipolar, meaning they have a physical and mental monopole(which are not actual entities themselves).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_ontology

This is not science - it is process philosophy - but science is a process, and slave to it. We are all slaves to process.

>>12709617
Does what you call 'true self-determination' depend on anything other than the notion of 'independent existence'? There is no such mode of existence; every entity is to be understood in terms of the way it is interwoven with the rest of the universe.

Does the script remove the actor's ability to self-determine? to improvise? with creativity and novelty?

>>12709472
We do see evidence of indetermination in nature, and a degree of self-determination in organisms. Determinism seems very improbable, to me. One should strive to take the whole evidence into account, even evidence outside the presupposition of classic ontology.

>>12708650
Pardon my philosophical woo, but obviously there's no scientific answer for "what happens when we die."

You're currently spiraling upward towards the center of a torus. Death is when you splat into a wall before hitting the mark. You'll then suffer the 'hellish' slide down this 'membrane of death' till being recovered by 'Archons' and recuperated for another incarnation cycle.

Many people do have dedicated support teams to recover them instantly. And others are simply free from the cycles of life and death, they'll integrate with the 'monad' at some point in 'life'.

>>12708254
Yes to both.
>>12708366
>What happens next?
Creativity, by the free will of all actual entities (including the atom) involved in that occasion of experience.
>>12708517
This. There are no whole truths, all truths are half-truths.

>immorality on the rise
>pump them with threats of damnation
>immorality continues to rise

>>12704311
Actual feedback. It isn't expressly positive or negative.
Repercussions are not the reason an act is 'wrong'.
The reason is evident, as the basic good are reasons with no further reasons.

They think that process and relations are secondary to what a thing is.

>Education is the acquisition of the art of the utilisation of knowledge.

>In training a child to activity of thought, we must beware of what I will call "inert ideas" -- that is to say, ideas that are merely received into the mind without being utilised, or tested, or thrown into fresh combinations. Culture is activity of thought, and receptiveness of beauty and humane feeling. Scraps of information have nothing to do with it.

>By utilising an idea, I mean relating it to that stream, compounded of sense perceptions, feelings, hopes, desires, and of mental activities adjusting thought to thought, which forms our life. .

>Let the main ideas which are introduced into a child's education be few and important, and let them be thrown into every combination possible. The child should make them his own, and should understand their application here and now in the circumstances of his actual life.

>The solution which I am urging, is to eradicate the fatal disconnection of subjects which kills the vitality of our modern curriculum.

>..no course of study can claim any position of ideal completeness. Nor are the omitted factors of subordinate importance. The insistence in the Platonic culture on disinterested intellectual appreciation is a psychological error. Action and our implication in the transition of events amid the inevitable bond of cause to effect are fundamental. An education which strives to divorce intellectual or aesthetic life from these fundamental facts carries with it the decadence of civilisation.

>Disinterested scientific curiosity is a passion for an ordered intellectual vision of the connection of events. But the … intervention of action even in abstract science is often overlooked. No man of science wants merely to know. He does not discover in order to know, he knows in order to discover. The pleasure which art and sciences can give to toil is the enjoyment which arises from successfully directed intention. (Whitehead)

I stayed in /x/ till being able to tie my nous and do da dasein. Now that I can discern both the real and the ontological, I feel that I can /sci/ without being too much of a nuisance~ or at least without becoming all over the place.

They smell different, not worse. I love huffing pits regardless of gender~

I dunno' what most maths people might say, but I like Whitehead, so
>When Whitehead and Russell logicized the concept of number, their starting point was our intuition of equinumerous classes of individuals—for example, our recognition that the class of dwarfs in the fairy tale of Snow White (Doc, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, Bashful, Sneezy, Dopey) and the class of days in a week (from Monday to Sunday) have ‘something’ in common, namely, the something we call ‘seven.’ Then they logically defined (i) classes C and C to be equinumerous when there is a one-to-one relation that correlates each of the members of C with one member of C, and (ii) the number of a class C as the class of all the classes that are equinumerous with C.

>When Whitehead logicized the space of physics, his starting point was our intuition of spatial volumes and of how one volume may contain (or extend over) another, giving rise to the (mereo)logical relation of containment (or extension) in the class of volumes, and to the concept of converging series of volumes—think, for example, of a series of Russian dolls, one contained in the other, but idealized to ever smaller dolls. Whitehead made all this rigorous and then, crudely put, defined the points from which to further construct the geometry of space.

>>12661441
>You need a physical description for something to be physical!
No, but if something IS physical then you CAN give a physical description of it. I can ask you right now how your room looks and you WOULD be able to answer. Does that mean your room is physically real? Yes.

Can you describe the physical characteristics of 'physics' in same you describe your room?
What about the physical characteristics of 'physical'?
The shit in your room? Not abstract, physical. You can touch it. It's physical.
The concept of physicality? Abstract, not physical. You can't touch it. It's mental.

>“The world is my idea:”—this is a truth which holds good for everything that lives and knows, though man alone can bring it into reflective and abstract consciousness. If he really does this, he has attained to philosophical wisdom. It then becomes clear and certain to him that what he knows is not a sun and an earth, but only an eye that sees a sun, a hand that feels an earth; that the world which surrounds him is there only as idea, i.e., only in relation to something else, the consciousness, which is himself. If any truth can be asserted a priori, it is this: for it is the expression of the most general form of all possible and thinkable experience: a form which is more general than time, or space, or causality, for they all presuppose it; and each of these is valid only for a particular class of ideas; whereas the antithesis of object and subject is the common form of all these classes, is that form under which alone any idea of whatever kind it may be, abstract or intuitive, pure or empirical, is possible and thinkable. No truth therefore is more certain, more independent of all others, and less in need of proof than this, that all that exists for knowledge, and therefore this whole world, is only object in relation to subject, perception of a perceiver, in a word, idea. This is obviously true of the past and the future, as well as of the present, of what is farthest off, as of what is near; for it is true of time and space themselves, in which alone these distinctions arise. All that in any way belongs or can belong to the world is inevitably thus conditioned through the subject, and exists only for the subject. The world is idea. (Schopenhauer, 'The World as Will and Representation)

Just food for thought. A perspective to consider. Evidence from human experience to be taken into account.

>>12660155
>Is the truthhood of this statement knowable?
There is no whole truth, all truths are half-truths. As a universal we can know nothing, but each one of us can and must know what it is that affects us. The best we can do is endeavor to take the whole evidence into account. Nature has observable processes. Sense-awareness and thought are themselves processes as well as their termini in nature.
>Obviously all systems are material by definition.
Obviously a belief. That's some misplaced concreteness, dog.

My position is not idealist, dualist, or materialist. I put concreteness is none of those things, because they are abstractions. The only consistency is change.

>>12660346
>Yeah that's belief, not science.
brah

>>12656712
>So why not just say every entity has free will?
That is what I'm saying~
.>Why?
Prehension. As explained. >>12654163
http://ppquimby.com/alan/prehen.htm
>Reification fallacy.
As is necissary when attempting to comprehend your reality~ They're both process, but you've reified the abstracted physical as concrete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness
>Then there's no self-determination.
>Random noise in the neurobiology of animals allows for the generation of alternative possibilities for action. In lower animals, this shows up as behavioral freedom. Animals are not causally predetermined by prior events going back in a causal chain to the origin of the universe. In higher animals, randomness can be consciously invoked to generate surprising new behaviors. In humans, creative new ideas can be critically evaluated and deliberated. On reflection, options can be rejected and sent back for “second thoughts” before a final responsible decision and action.

>When the indeterminism is limited to the early stage of a mental decision, the later decision itself can be described as adequately determined. This is called the two-stage model, first the “free” generation of ideas, then an adequately determinism evaluation and selection process we call “will." https://www.informationphilosopher.com/articles/STI-Springer-Doyle.pdf
>A delusion isn't knowledge.
Nor is a physical particle~
>>12643023
Exemplar. This is the evidence of human experience which scientific materialism simply ignores, and sufficient grounds for accepting the usefulness of a process view.
https://youtu.be/GFlzCOhjTtc

>>12655177
>What does the whole human experience tell you about consciousness?
That we are affected by a subjective form of intellectual feeling; that we have a subjective awareness which is affected by feelings, thus must have an aspect which is receptive to affect, which is traditionally called 'mental'. An entity is not merely the sum of it's relations, but also an evaluation and reaction to them~
>It is. Now explain why the idea of free will can only exist if we have free will.
The process of creation is never deterministic, and every actual entity has a degree of self-determination and novelty. This is evident by good of reason.
>"freedom is not just chance but, rather, the result of a subtle interplay between something almost random or haphazard, and something like a restrictive or selective control." - Popper
>"Just as indeterminism need not undermine rationality and voluntariness of choices, so indeterminism in and of itself need not undermine control and responsibility.' - Kane

>This is gibberish and doesn't explain how the mental subsumes the physical.
Abstraction directly subsumes the physical~
>So first you say it's lack of determinism and now you're back to determinism, which is it?
Lack of determinism. Abundance of self-determining actual entities~
>"A set of known physical conditions is not adequate to specify precisely what a forthcoming event will be. These conditions, insofar as they can be known, define instead a range of possible events from among which some particular event will occur. When one exercises freedom, by his act of choice he is himself adding a factor not supplied by the physical conditions and is thus himself determining what will occur. That he does so is known only to the person himself. From the outside one can see in his act only the working of physical law. It is the inner knowledge that he is in fact doing what he intends to do that tells the actor himself that he is free." - Compton

>>12654728
God! The Infinite Creator. Brahman, Demiurge. The absolute butt that every Dog wants to sniff; the primordial lure of desire, offering occasions to the world from it's absolute wealth of potentiality. God is the fellow-sufferer who understands.
>It does not emphasize the ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover. It dwells upon the tender elements in the world, which slowly and in quietness operates by love; and it finds purpose in the present immediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved; also it is a little oblivious as to morals. It does not look to the future; for it finds its own reward in the immediate present. (Whitehead)

Laminar.

>>12654209
>Get tested for diversity.
You're suggesting people submit to commodification as things. They're perhaps weird, but you're plainly cruel and calculating. The fact that you do it within norms is exactly what permits such violence. No need for testing, go right to treatment.

>The first, the imperative and descriptive factor, represents the personal element; it directs and describes the personal violence of the sadist as well as his individual tastes; the second and higher factor represents the impersonal element in sadism and identifies the impersonal violence with an Idea of pure reason, with a terrifying demonstration capable of subordinating the first element..' '..In certain cases the personal element is almost entirely absent. The subject gets sexual enjoyment from beating boys and girls, but the purely impersonal element of his perversion is much more in evidence .... While in most individuals of this type the feelings of power are experienced in relation to specific persons, we are dealing here with a pronounced form of sadism operating to a great extent in geographical and mathematical patterns.' (Deleuze, Masochism: Coldness and Cruelty.)

>>12654030
>Which evidence?
That provided by the whole human experience.
>You have failed repeatedly to explain why the idea of free will can only exist if we have free will.
Is it not evident to you that 'the Sun can only exist only if the Sun exists'?
>Inherent in each actual entity is its respective dimension of time. Potentially, each Whiteheadean occasion of experience is causally consequential on every other occasion of experience that precedes it in time, and has as its causal consequences every other occasion of experience that follows it in time; thus it has been said that Whitehead's occasions of experience are 'all window', in contrast to Leibniz's 'windowless' monads. In time defined relative to it, each occasion of experience is causally influenced by prior occasions of experiences, and causally influences future occasions of experience. An occasion of experience consists of a process of prehending other occasions of experience, reacting to them. This is the process in process philosophy.

>Such process is never deterministic. Consequently, free will is essential and inherent to the universe

>How?
Cocreating future potentials for newness by prehending the completed experiences that constitute the past.
>Indeterminism isn't self-determination.
Cool. Self-determinism is evidenced in even unicellular organisms. They are not self-indetermining, and chance has nothing to do with Creativity~
>External and internal only have relevance in the context of causality.
They only have relevance in context of the self which is determining~
>An external lottery is as undetermined by you as a lottery in your head
Actual entities are self-determining, not other-determining~
>Just like magic.
Your ignorance is blinding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness

>>12653832
Aye. Reality is our fundamental fantasies, as opposed to the Real.
>>12653848
Its far easier to imagine consciousness as some mystical spirit, or as mere matter, reducing to one or the other, than it is to actually take the whole evidence into account~
>Jesus saves your soul from Original Sin.
I do indeed.
>And? Where does the mental subsume the organism?
Wherever actual entities are prehending.
> doesn't imply you have any control over it
Free will is a degree of self-determination. It has nothing to do with control over external bodies~
>What does this have to do with free will?
They are moving by their own free will~
>I guess robots and computers
And puffs of smoke, yes~ Free will is inherent to the universe.