/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12653843
>If we admit that the basic entities of our world are processes, we can generate better philosophical descriptions of all the kinds of entities and relationships we are committed to when we reason about our world in common sense and in science: from quantum entanglement to consciousness, from computation to feelings, from things to institutions, from organisms to societies, from traffic jams to climate change, from spacetime to beauty. Moreover, results in cognitive science, some philosophers have claimed, show that we need a process metaphysics in order to develop a naturalist theory of the mind and of normativity. These arguments form the background for the processist criticism of the focus on substance in Western philosophy. The bias towards substances seems to be rooted partly in the cognitive dispositions of speakers of Indo-European languages, and partly in theoretical habituation, as the traditional prioritization of static entities (substances, objects, states of affairs, static structures) at the beginning of Western metaphysics built on itself. In contrast, process philosophy shows fewer affinities to any particular language group and can allude to a rich tradition of reflection in many of the great schools of Eastern thought. As recently appeared, process philosophy also has an increasing practical dimension, since only if we re-visualize our world as a system of interactions can we come to grips, conceptually and ethically, with the new phenomena of artificial life, artificial intelligence, and artificial sociality, and investigate the exceptionality of human capacities and the scope of moral obligation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy#Legacy_and_applications

>>12653003
>Who said anything about subjective or objective?
"Consciousness isn't anything transcendental or mystic, merely a subjective form of intellectual feeling. One can consider mind and brain as the same ontological thing observed from fundamentally different viewpoints, but the subjective viewpoint cannot be reduced to the other."
>Change doesn't subsume what changes.
Change subsumes both concepts under the singular category of process.
>Not arbitrary, we know the mental is a product of the brain.
Both are products of organism. There is reason for dipolarity, and for the mental state resulting from organization of process relations. It purposefully describes a character of the world, it is towards a good. For what /reason/ have you stated the facts of nature? What is the methodological purpose of that fact? If it's merely to reach coherence with some concept of 'concreteness', that concreteness is misplaced.
>So Whitehead is wrong and your quote proves nothing.
Quite the opposite.
>I don't care. Answer the question.
Lack of determinism directly implies a degree of self-determinism.
>"Evidence of randomly generated action — action that is distinct from reaction because it does not depend upon external stimuli — can be found in unicellular organisms. Take the way the bacterium Escherichia coli moves. It has a flagellum that can rotate around its longitudinal axis in either direction: one way drives the bacterium forward, the other causes it to tumble at random so that it ends up facing in a new direction ready for the next phase of forward motion. This 'random walk' can be modulated by sensory receptors, enabling the bacterium to find food and the right temperature."
>It doesn't follow.
If you can't follow, that's okay.
https://youtu.be/8uC35poq1Zs

>Such as?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/#HistCont
>>12652965
The cumulative case will show a naturalistic theism, like that of Process Philosophy, to be more probable than something like atheism.
>All of the arguments are phases of one ‘global’ argument, that the properly formulated theistically religious view of life and reality is the most intelligible, self-consistent, and satisfactory one that can be conceived. (Hartshorne)

>>12652347
>Which is?
Objective.
>How
Change and time.
>Which conflation?
Mental as physical.
>That's a nice religious doctrine, but how are abstract concepts proof of what reality is made up of?
Exactly. The abstract presupposition of classical ontology doesn't prove anything, it's not concrete. This is where we use human reason - which allows man to act, goods - to decide appropriate concepts. A classical ontology let us establish a theory of knowledge, but we're not restricted to the limitations of scientific rationalism. I propose scientific pragmatism which can take the whole evidence of human experience into account.
>Explain how ideation counters determinism, and how lack of determinism implies free will.
The ultimate abstract principle of actual existence for Whitehead is creativity. Creativity is a term coined by Whitehead to show a power in the world that allows the presence of an actual entity, a new actual entity, and multiple actual entities. Creativity is the principle of novelty. It is manifest in what can be called 'singular causality'. This term may be contrasted with the term 'nomic causality'. An example of singular causation is that I woke this morning because my alarm clock rang. An example of nomic causation is that alarm clocks generally wake people in the morning. Aristotle recognizes singular causality as efficient causality. For Whitehead, there are many contributory singular causes for an event. A further contributory singular cause of my being awoken by my alarm clock this morning was that I was lying asleep near it till it rang.
>First we know that our experiences of free action contain both indeterminism and rationality...Second we know that quantum indeterminacy is the only form of indeterminism that is indisputably established as a fact of nature...it follows that quantum mechanics must enter into the explanation of consciousness." (John Searle)

>>12652680
An ethics is relative to a discourse. What is it you desire?
https://youtu.be/hzAauVhKyb8

There's nothing to cure, it's not an illness.
>>12652613
and I mean it in this sense. We can toy with lucidity and delirium, in developmental and healthy ways, so long as there's no loss of insight. (but there nearly always is) Insight is the difference between a clinical patient and a mystic, it would be the essential /cure/ for schizophrenia if it weren't near impossible to teach or recover.
>>12652623
I like Bateson's double-bind theory. They're kinda' like koans.
>>12652624
>“So it comes about that there are many neurotics whose inner decency prevents them from being at one with present-day morality and who cannot adapt themselves so long as the moral code has gaps in it which it is of the crying need of our age to fill.” “…are born and destined rather to be bearers of new cultural ideals. They are neurotic as long as they bow down before authority and refuse the freedom to which they are destined.”

>“It would, in general, be a great mistake to deny any teleological value to the apparently pathological fantasies of a neurotic. They are, as a matter fact, the first beginnings of spiritualization, the first groping attempts to find new ways of adapting.” -Carl Jung
https://youtu.be/wgWHH4GMOSQ

>>12652347
>Other what?
Viewpoint.
>No, it's not. The physical subsumes the mental.
Both are subsumed by process. This conflation is entirely arbitrary. It does nothing, there is no reason behind it. So long as the body exists, it's mental.
>Proof?
>The fundamental concepts are activity and process. … The notion of self-sufficient isolation is not exemplified in modern physics. There are no essentially self-contained activities within limited regions. … Nature is a theatre for the interrelations of activities. All things change, the activities and their interrelations. … In the place of the procession of [spatial] forms (of externally related bits of matter, modern physics) has substituted the notion of the forms of process. It has thus swept away space and matter, and has substituted the study of the internal relations within a complex state of activity. (Whitehead)
Where as the presupposition of a classic ontology, unsuited to our scientific position, is an entirely false notion in itself. It's well proven itself to be left behind.
>"In fact, science conceived as restricting itself to the sensationalist methodology can find neither efficient nor final causality. It can find no creativity in Nature; it finds mere rules of succession” ... “The reason for this blindness lies in the fact that such science only deals with half of the evidence provided by human experience”
The significant contributions and invaluable role provided by Processism has already solidified it's place in the sciences.
>QM has nothing to do with mental states or free will
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/two-stage_models.html
>In 1931, Nobel prize-winning physicist Compton championed the idea of human freedom based on quantum uncertainty and invented the notion of amplification of microscopic quantum events to bring chance into the macroscopic world.

>>12652327
>Oedipus is the final bastion of immuno-politics, and schizophrenia is its outside. This is not to say that it is an exteriority determined by Oedipus, related in a privileged fashion to Oedipus, anticipating Oedipus, or defying Oedipus. It is thoroughly anoedipal, although it will casually consume the entire Oedipal apparatus in the process through which terrestrial history connects with an orphan cosmos. Schizophrenia is not, therefore, a property of clinical schizophrenics, those medical products devastated by an 'artificial schizophrenia, such as one sees in hospitals, the autistic wreck(s) produced as entit(ies). On the contrary, 'the schizo-entity' is a defeated splinter of schizophrenia, pinned down by the rubberized claws of sanity. The conditions of psychiatric observation are carceral, so that it is a transcendental structure of schizophrenia-as-object that it be represented in a state of imprisonment.

>Traditional schemas which oppose technics to nature, to literate culture, or to social relations, are all dominated by a phobic resistance to the sidelining of human intelligence by the coming techno sapiens. Thus one sees the decaying Hegelian socialist heritage clinging with increasing desperation to the theological sentimentalities of praxis, reification, alienation, ethics, autonomy, and other such my themes of human creative sovereignty. A Cartesian howl is raised: people are being treated as things! Rather than as . . . soul, spirit, the subject of history, Dasein? For how long will this infantilism be protracted? (Nick Land)

>>12652271
>The New Latin word autismus (autism) was coined by Eugen Bleuler in 1910 as he was defining symptoms of schizophrenia. He derived it from the Greek word autós ( "self"), and used it to mean morbid self-admiration, referring to "autistic withdrawal of the patient to his fantasies, against which any influence from outside becomes an intolerable disturbance".
https://youtu.be/NPp7bkxY4KI

>>12652223
That's exactly how they diagnose it, but obviously it's not merely a list of symptoms. It is libido which resists Oedipal striation that is schizophrenic. Thus the energy of their psyche is capable of movement and desire which the typical cannot even perceive as potentials. They move in ways others can't move, which is definable.

Though it has nothing at all to do with the DSM, nor is it a disorder, though some are disordered by it; we can see both deterritorializatoin and schizophrenia occur in nature.

>Since the neuroticization of schizophrenia is the molecular reproduction of capital, by means of a reaxiomatization of decoding as accumulation, the historical sense of psychoanalytic practice is evident. Schizophrenia is the pattern to Freud's repressions, it is that which does not qualify to pass the screen of Oedipal censorship. With those who bow down to Oedipus we can do business, even make a little money, but schizophrenics refuse transference, won't play daddy and mummy, operate on a cosmic-religious plane, the only thing we can do is lock them up (cut up their brains, fry them with ect, straightjacket them in Thorazine). Behind the social workers are the police, and behind the psychoanalysts are the psychopolice . Deleuze-Guattari remark that 'madness is called madness and appears as such only because it finds itself reduced to testifying all alone for deterritorialization as a universal process'. The vanishing sandbank of Oedipus wages its futile war against the tide. 'There are still not enough psychotics' writes Artaud the insurrectionist. Clinical schizophrenics are POWS from the future." (Nick Land)

>>12648608
That's some straightforward gaslighting and hatred.
>>12651974
Getting more thugs to do the dirty work doesn't make the thugging itself any less cruel, phobic, and infantile.

>>12651541
>Definitions are abstract too.
Applying concreteness to abstractions of physicality is just as erroneous as applying concreteness to the mental itself. Consciousness isn't anything transcendental or mystic, merely a subjective form of intellectual feeling. One can consider mind and brain as the same ontological thing observed from fundamentally different viewpoints, but the subjective viewpoint cannot be reduced to the other.
>Mental is physical
It is as true to say that the mental is physical, as it is to say that the physical is mental.
>All purely physical. Try again.
All processual. Not purely physical, as the mental state is included in organization of the body. The only significance of 'physicality' is denoting it from the abstract and non-physical, since substance is merely a type of process.
>To say that every unit-event [i.e. something that happens to these supposedly experiencing entities]... has a mental aspect means that it has a degree—however slight in the most elementary events—of spontaneity or self-determination. Although the event’s physical pole is given to it, its mentality is its capacity to decide precisely what to make of its given foundation. Its physicality is its relation to past actuality; its mentality involves its prehension of ideality or possibility, through which it escapes total determination by the past
The mental aspect and free will are evidenced by, and to account for, quantum mechanics.

>It’s obvious how a statement such as “Consciousness does not exist” involves a performative contradiction, but a statement such as “Consciousness is merely an epiphenomenon” runs afoul of performative consistency, too. If the uttered statement means what the speaker intended, then it must be conceded that her mind has had an effect on her body. If the statement was affirmed because the speaker thought it was true, then she must have had the freedom to let herself be motivated by an ideal such as truth.

>>12651305
Your conflation has everything to do with what I'm replying to.

>nonsense
>Every age produces people with clear logical intellects, and with the most praiseworthy grip of the importance of some sphere of human experience, who have elaborated, or inherited, a scheme of thought which exactly fits those experiences which claim their interest. Such people are apt resolutely to ignore, or to explain away, all evidence which confuses their scheme with contradictory instances. What they cannot fit in is for them nonsense. An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable opinion. This advice seems so easy, and is in fact so difficult to follow.

>philosophy
>I hold that philosophy is the critic of abstractions. Its function is the double one, first of harmonising them by assigning to them their right relative status as abstractions, and secondly of completing them by direct comparison with more concrete intuitions of the universe, and thereby promoting the formation of more complete schemes of thought. It is in respect to this comparison that the testimony of great poets is of such importance. Their survival is evidence that they express deep intuitions of mankind penetrating into what is universal in concrete fact. Philosophy is not one among the sciences with its own little scheme of abstractions which it works away at perfecting and improving. It is the survey of the sciences, with the special object of their harmony, and of their completion. It brings to this task, not only the evidence of the separate sciences, but also its own appeal to concrete experience. (Whitehead)

>>12651296
Abstractions are nonphysical by definition. That is true by meaning of the words. Without this distinction you grossly conflate the concrete and abstract, a fallacy of misplaced concreteness. The reason to avoid that, and for attributing dipolarity of actuality entities, is that it's the most practical method for mapping and understanding processes. Science is a process.

>The primary qualities are the essential qualities of substances whose spatio-temporal relationships constitute nature. … The occurrences of nature are in some way apprehended by minds … But the mind in apprehending also experiences sensations which, properly speaking, are qualities of the mind alone. These sensations are projected by the mind so as to clothe appropriate bodies in external nature. Thus the bodies are perceived as with qualities which in reality do not belong to them, qualities which in fact are purely the offspring of the mind. Thus nature gets credit which should in truth be reserved for ourselves: the rose for its scent: the nightingale for his song: and the sun for his radiance. The poets are entirely mistaken. They should address their lyrics to themselves, and should turn them into odes of self-congratulation on the excellency of the human mind. Nature is a dull affair, soundless, scentless, colourless; merely the hurrying of material, endlessly, meaninglessly.

>The enormous success of the scientific abstractions has foisted onto philosophy the task of accepting them as the most concrete rendering of fact. Thereby, modern philosophy has been ruined. It has oscillated in a complex manner between three extremes. There are the dualists, who accept matter and mind as on an equal basis, and the two varieties of monists, those who put mind inside matter, and those who put matter inside mind. But this juggling with abstractions can never overcome the inherent confusion introduced by the ascription of misplaced concreteness to the scientific scheme. (Whitehead)

>>12651118
You don't understand what self-evident means.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Intellectual_evidence_(the_evident)

>Finnis, Grisez and Boyle point out that what is self-evident cannot be verified by experience, nor derived from any previous knowledge, nor inferred from any basic truth through a middle ground. Immediately they point out that the first principles are evident per se nota, known only through the knowledge of the meanings of the terms, and clarify that "This does not mean that they are mere linguistic clarifications, nor that they are intuitions-insights unrelated to data. Rather, it means that these truths are known (nota) without any middle term (per se), by understanding what is signified by their terms." Then when speaking specifically about the practical principles, they point out that they are not intuitions without contents, but their data come from the object to which natural human dispositions tend, that motivate human behavior and guide actions. Those goods to which humans primarily tend, which cannot be "reduced" to another good (it is to say, that they are not means to an end), they are considered "evident": "as the basic good are reasons with no further reasons".

Those goods to which humans primarily tend, which cannot be "reduced" to another good (it is to say, that they are not means to an end), they are considered "evident": "as the basic good are reasons with no further reasons".

>>12650889
We can state and use reason to find the evident good, as the basic good are reasons with no further reason. Those are the kind of philosophical assumptions underlying science. Identical to the mere presupposition of classic ontology which you're currently standing upon.

>>12651048
You're "doing ideology" right now because you're sentimental. I'd recommend trying to take the whole evidence into account.

>>12649323
>Mental is physical whether you think about it like that or not.
Actual entities are dipolar. The physical and mental poles are aspects of every real being(actual entities), but are not real beings themselves.
>No it means the opposite.
You're claiming abstract concepts are physical. Truth is physical? Obviously not, it's abstract.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness

>>12648980
>Your thinking of them is concrete and physical.
I'm thinking of them as mental. The abstract concepts don't exist outside the mind - they don't exist outside that context. That means they exist /outside/ concrete and physical context.
>Proof?
Circadian rhythms. Brainwaves. Heartbeat. Breath. Peripheral oscillators synchronized throughout the body. The body and brain are networks and nodes of flows. They are created by, for, and as processes. The nodes are not the mind or consciousness, the network is not conscious. Yet we are conscious - aware - as a direct result of concrete organization. We are concrete organisms, but not merely concrete. The organization of the body includes the mental state. This state is plainly non-physical. The illusory reality of fundamental fantasies, beliefs, and abstract concepts, simply are not physical. The experiencer is not bits of matter, that is not a reasonable relation - the players is not the character nor the processor. - This is not an arbitrary distinction, it is by good reason. Truth is an abstract concept, but we use it to define physical-concrete concepts. We must take care not to consider an abstract truth or belief as concrete in itself.
>There persists ... [a] fixed scientific cosmology which presupposes the ultimate fact of an irreducible brute matter, or material, spread through space in a flux of configurations. In itself such a material is senseless, valueless, purposeless. It just does what it does do, following a fixed routine imposed by external relations which do not spring from the nature of its being. It is this assumption that I call "scientific materialism." Also it is an assumption which I shall challenge as being entirely unsuited to the scientific situation at which we have now arrived. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_North_Whitehead#Whitehead's_conception_of_reality

https://youtu.be/PBZnMF20zhg

>>12645305
>>12645331
You presuppose a classic ontology. Clearly when I think of a bone, it is not a physical bone. It's an abstraction. Are abstractions concrete-physical? Does truth have a physical cause? A bit of matter at a simple location? The process of relations brings about the mental state, not the matter.
>[…] apart from any essential reference of the relations of [a] bit of matter to other regions of space […] there is no element whatever which possesses this character of simple location. [… Instead,] I hold that by a process of constructive abstraction we can arrive at abstractions which are the simply located bits of material, and at other abstractions which are the minds included in the scientific scheme. Accordingly, the real error is an example of what I have termed: The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness. (Whitehead)
All actual entities have a measure of free will, however small it may be. a degree of novelty.
https://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/two-stage_models.html

>>12648470
Yes, by my cumulative case a naturalistic theism appears to be more probable than atheism. I've been a mystic for a few years now and just recently started 'Dasein'.
>All of the arguments are phases of one ‘global’ argument, that the properly formulated theistically religious view of life and reality is the most intelligible, self-consistent, and satisfactory one that can be conceived. (Hartshorne)

http://ppquimby.com/alan/prehen.htm

>>12646924
>science conceived as resting on mere sense-perception, with no other sources of observation, is bankrupt, so far as concerns its claims to self-sufficiency.
>>12648224
Why not endeavor to take the whole evidence into account?

>Sense-perception, for all its practical importance, is very superficial in its disclosure of the nature of things. … My quarrel with [Hume] concerns [his] exclusive stress upon sense-perception for the provision of data respecting Nature. Sense-perception does not provide the data in terms of which we interpret it.

>My point is, that 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.

>The antithesis between a technical and a liberal education is fallacious. There can be no technical education which is not liberal, and no liberal education which is not technical: that is, no education which does not import both technique and intellectual vision. (Whitehead)

>>12632104
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_philosophy
>>12647174
Abstract concepts exist and they aren't physical. In Whitehead's philosophy physical and mental poles are aspects of every real being(actual entities), but are not real beings themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)#Fallacy_of_misplaced_concreteness
>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

>>11907290
Tarot is synchronic, it "aims at describing a language at a specific point of time, usually the present." It aims at describing the order of objects, which is the relation between all oscillating systems in the cosmos, from heartbeats to the eternal objects contained within the Godhead. As above, so below. There is no simultaneous occurrence of meaningful events, but an event which describes the occurrence of meaningful events. Tarot is one of the best representations of our system Logos. I consider Tarot itself to be a refinement of mythologies, which are also synchronic. Studying them is an excellent practice, drawing them is just too profane for my liking. It's not cosmic sexy.

Using Tarot for divination is an attempt to strategize seduction. It pulls the divine into an objective framework then draws a causal contract, which extinguishes divine light in order to extract meaning. I consider synchronicity to be a liberation of divine light which shares meaning. It is romance and intimacy manifested into bodies which represent it to itself. Divination is sex manifested through bodies, which may represent a romance and intimacy not of itself.

>What more is there to say? Nothing is closer to this delicious, vertiginous, insoluble sensation of being the decisive element in some situation without willing it, than pleasing someone with a single glance. A tiny cause, an extraordinary effect: it’s the only proof we have of the existence of God. Incalculable connections are the stuff of our dreams, but also of our daily bread. We like nothing more than this crazy imbalance of cause and effect - it opens fabulous horizons on our origins and on our potential power. They say that seduction is a strategy. Nothing could be more wrong. Seduction is a matter of these unexpected connections that any strategy can at best only attempt to reproduce. (Baudrillard).

Scrying a crystal ball attempts sympathetic resonance between intuition and the medium.