Currently writing a masters thesis on a process related topic and have found the collection in 'Everything Flows' extremely helpful - thankyou for you and your colleagues contributions.
Fine to bypass Whitehead, of course, but just so no one gets the wrong idea, his actual occasions are not “little things.” This “micrological” reading is a common misconception. Rather, as James Bradley has it, “actual entities and their process of feeling are not to be conceived as a substratum from which the empirical world is derived. Actual entities are not the basic constituents of things, which are embodied in ever more complex formations; they are not a special kind of existent, or indeed any kind of existent at all. The concept of actual entities and their process of feeling is not the concept of a substratum, or of anything else, that is in any way actual qua existent, but is a descriptive model of the generic features of any existent, from the simplest to the most complex. It is in this, and not in any foundational sense that the concept of actual entities and their feeling-structure represents for Whitehead the 'ultimate', 'final', 'real', or 'actual' nature of things.” (Process Studies journal, Vol 14, No 4, 1985).
I didn’t get this, predominantly because I struggled to see a real difference between the definition of processes and the definition of things. Processes must be compromised of things therefore at a reductionist level they are one and the same. Even if you go off piste and delve into the supernatural, whatever is happening still has to ultimately be compromised of things or it is nothing.
OK, so for what it is worth, here's my take. You are right that following reductionism it is possible to view reality as being composed of some type of object(s), or 'things'. But we don't actually observe those 'things'. What we observe are processes. Sure our observations may arise as the interaction of 'things' but such a view is actually hypothetical. Our observations are not of the hypothetical 'things', no matter how good an explanation such 'things' may offer - we only ever observe (and partake in) interactions, or processes. The processes cannot be denied, they are what we experience - but what is casuing those processes is open to theory - any theory. So one event, the process is real and tangible, the other, the underlying 'thing' is hypotheticl and the picture of atoms, etc., could be wrong. An example - consider an electric current. At the process level we observe the phenomenon of something we call current. We work with this and can feel and use its effects. However, we also hypothesize that there are things called 'electrons' which, by moving, giving rise to the observed event of current. One, the current, is real in the sense that it can be directly experienced and worked with. The other, the hypothetical thing that causes the current ie the electrons, may or may not be real. Sure the electron theory has a lot of observed evidence to support it - but fundamentally it is still only an idea. In the extreme we could be totally wrong about what underlies our observed reality - it may be not be composed of things at all - even if it is, we could still be wrong about what those 'things' are. Reductionism fails because it is based on the starting idea that these underlying 'things' exist. But they may not - they are still only hypothetical. However, the processes are directly observable and even though we may not fully understand them they are what constitute our reality. Any use?
@@SolveEtCoagula93 Thank you. However isn’t that equivalent to regressing the state of knowledge to pre Copernicus? A distant planet, not visible without magnification, can both have a physical presence (confirmed by the use of magnification or probes) and have a process impact (impacting the orbits of other nearby planets that happen to be in man’s unaided visible range. However it isn’t the process that is important it’s the particles of the planet that give it the mass that is responsible for its gravitational processes. Surely the same is true of sub atomic particles, just because they are too small to see it seems unreasonable to assume they don’t exist when we can measure their existence indirectly in other ways. In addition, I’m fairly sure that using electron ptychography, they have now generated images of the atoms within crystals, further confirming the standard model of physics. Although I’d agree that when you approach QM it doesn’t feel like we’re there yet.
@@yp77738yp77739 Ah, no that's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that the problem is one of scale, rather it's one of concept. Using the idea of electrons to explain current was only meant as an example of an observation which we then have to infer arises due to some type of 'thing'. we cannot directly observe the electron, it has to be infered from measurements and a mathematical model. You mention crystalography and it is a good example of the problem. When we shine Xrays onto crystals we can generate a series of images which are essentially a pattern spots. By using some reasonably complex maths these spots can be shown to be the effect we woould exppect IF the 'things' scattering the X rays were 'atoms'. However, we do not see the atoms. We use the models to support the idea that atoms exist. BUT we couold be wrong. Maybe there is a totally different way of looking at the data and the underlying reason for the scattering. We don't look for a different model because the results we obtain support atomic theory. But, maybe an alien civilisation has developed a totally differently way of thinking about the sturcture of reality - one in which therre are no atoms at all. Providing their theories and and data are self supporting their models would be correct. However, they could have a very different from of science to ours. The point I'm trying to make is that once we mve beyond our direct observations and start to build hypothetical models to explain what is happening we enter a world where the main criteria for correctness is a valid model supported by data. We have developed such a model using the ideas of atoms but it is, at least in theory, mpossible to generate a wholly different view of reality if we can find a self supporting framework. In other words, back to the point, whatever is causing the observed effect is unkownable and exists mainly as a mathematical model. This is different to the concept of using processes. These do not rely on mathematics in order to exist but are directly observavble. To summarise: I can experience the colour yellow by direct observation - this is a process. In order to explain my experience via 'things' I now need to develop a theory of photons, wavelengths, etc.. These things however are not directly observable and have to be infered. Once at the level of inference we may be right, or we may not be. Processes are observable, 'things' are not.
@@SolveEtCoagula93 Thank you so much. I do now understand the why, thank you. There are indeed many things which remain more or less uncertain and possibly will remain so for a considerable period of time. However, by necessity of certain restrictions that is how science has to be, particularly when describing observations at the the extremes of scale. At these scales you have no choice but to generate possible hypothesis and then validate or invalidate by experimentation. So whilst never being absolute, rather like calculus, you are moving ever closer to that absolute but can never get to it. I will try again to see if I can appreciate the agency of what he proposes.
@@yp77738yp77739 Glad to have been of some help. Sometimes ideas are more subtle than they seem at first and need working on in order to see them. There is one last thing I would like to add which concerns this debate of processes vs the 'things' that cause them. For most of us our view of reality is that we are brains inside of boney boxes. Our brain has no direct contact with the 'outside world', rather it has to form a construct via the sensory information which is continually entering its domain. According to this construct, the sensory data consists of electrical impulses which are filtered and processed by the brain, then used to form an image, or construct, of what we call reality. The important thing here is that although we are aware of processes we are not directly aware of the 'things' that create the electrical impulses - the 'ding an sich' of Kant. Indeed, if we follow this argument a little deeper, even the construct of us being brains inside boney boxes, receiving eletrical data, cannot be truly known since it too is a nothing more than a construct. For me, this is one of THE most fascinating ideas behind the whole process vs 'thing' debate and leads into all kinds of weird and strange lands. Take care.
![Ice On My Teeth - ATEEZ エイティーズ 에이티즈 [Music Bank] | KBS WORLD TV 241115](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/c-n92OgbbwA/mqdefault.jpg)
Currently writing a masters thesis on a process related topic and have found the collection in 'Everything Flows' extremely helpful - thankyou for you and your colleagues contributions.
100K subscribers, well done! No doubt your YT silver plaque is on its way to you.
A plague of SILVER? 😮
Now THAT'S a kind of plague with which I would like to be infected. 😊
@@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices 😆I really didn't mean to type plague! Thank you for pointing it out for me😂
Also progression is more appropriate n truthful than just progress
Fine to bypass Whitehead, of course, but just so no one gets the wrong idea, his actual occasions are not “little things.” This “micrological” reading is a common misconception. Rather, as James Bradley has it, “actual entities and their process of feeling are not to be conceived as a substratum from which the empirical world is derived. Actual entities are not the basic constituents of things, which are embodied in ever more complex formations; they are not a special kind of existent, or indeed any kind of existent at all. The concept of actual entities and their process of feeling is not the concept of a substratum, or of anything else, that is in any way actual qua existent, but is a descriptive model of the generic features of any existent, from the simplest to the most complex. It is in this, and not in any foundational sense that the concept of actual entities and their feeling-structure represents for Whitehead the 'ultimate', 'final', 'real', or 'actual' nature of things.” (Process Studies journal, Vol 14, No 4, 1985).
Yeah, what he said! ;-)
I agree with the process of Mr. Whitehead because through his way of thinking about the process he cried out to God and God listened. L.A.👑
dupre boy
I didn't finish the video but what do you think about deleuze?
I didn’t get this, predominantly because I struggled to see a real difference between the definition of processes and the definition of things. Processes must be compromised of things therefore at a reductionist level they are one and the same.
Even if you go off piste and delve into the supernatural, whatever is happening still has to ultimately be compromised of things or it is nothing.
OK, so for what it is worth, here's my take.
You are right that following reductionism it is possible to view reality as being composed of some type of object(s), or 'things'. But we don't actually observe those 'things'. What we observe are processes. Sure our observations may arise as the interaction of 'things' but such a view is actually hypothetical. Our observations are not of the hypothetical 'things', no matter how good an explanation such 'things' may offer - we only ever observe (and partake in) interactions, or processes. The processes cannot be denied, they are what we experience - but what is casuing those processes is open to theory - any theory.
So one event, the process is real and tangible, the other, the underlying 'thing' is hypotheticl and the picture of atoms, etc., could be wrong.
An example - consider an electric current. At the process level we observe the phenomenon of something we call current. We work with this and can feel and use its effects. However, we also hypothesize that there are things called 'electrons' which, by moving, giving rise to the observed event of current. One, the current, is real in the sense that it can be directly experienced and worked with. The other, the hypothetical thing that causes the current ie the electrons, may or may not be real. Sure the electron theory has a lot of observed evidence to support it - but fundamentally it is still only an idea.
In the extreme we could be totally wrong about what underlies our observed reality - it may be not be composed of things at all - even if it is, we could still be wrong about what those 'things' are. Reductionism fails because it is based on the starting idea that these underlying 'things' exist. But they may not - they are still only hypothetical. However, the processes are directly observable and even though we may not fully understand them they are what constitute our reality.
Any use?
@@SolveEtCoagula93 Thank you. However isn’t that equivalent to regressing the state of knowledge to pre Copernicus? A distant planet, not visible without magnification, can both have a physical presence (confirmed by the use of magnification or probes) and have a process impact (impacting the orbits of other nearby planets that happen to be in man’s unaided visible range. However it isn’t the process that is important it’s the particles of the planet that give it the mass that is responsible for its gravitational processes.
Surely the same is true of sub atomic particles, just because they are too small to see it seems unreasonable to assume they don’t exist when we can measure their existence indirectly in other ways. In addition, I’m fairly sure that using electron ptychography, they have now generated images of the atoms within crystals, further confirming the standard model of physics. Although I’d agree that when you approach QM it doesn’t feel like we’re there yet.
@@yp77738yp77739 Ah, no that's not what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that the problem is one of scale, rather it's one of concept. Using the idea of electrons to explain current was only meant as an example of an observation which we then have to infer arises due to some type of 'thing'. we cannot directly observe the electron, it has to be infered from measurements and a mathematical model.
You mention crystalography and it is a good example of the problem. When we shine Xrays onto crystals we can generate a series of images which are essentially a pattern spots. By using some reasonably complex maths these spots can be shown to be the effect we woould exppect IF the 'things' scattering the X rays were 'atoms'. However, we do not see the atoms. We use the models to support the idea that atoms exist. BUT we couold be wrong. Maybe there is a totally different way of looking at the data and the underlying reason for the scattering. We don't look for a different model because the results we obtain support atomic theory.
But, maybe an alien civilisation has developed a totally differently way of thinking about the sturcture of reality - one in which therre are no atoms at all. Providing their theories and and data are self supporting their models would be correct. However, they could have a very different from of science to ours.
The point I'm trying to make is that once we mve beyond our direct observations and start to build hypothetical models to explain what is happening we enter a world where the main criteria for correctness is a valid model supported by data. We have developed such a model using the ideas of atoms but it is, at least in theory, mpossible to generate a wholly different view of reality if we can find a self supporting framework.
In other words, back to the point, whatever is causing the observed effect is unkownable and exists mainly as a mathematical model. This is different to the concept of using processes. These do not rely on mathematics in order to exist but are directly observavble.
To summarise: I can experience the colour yellow by direct observation - this is a process. In order to explain my experience via 'things' I now need to develop a theory of photons, wavelengths, etc.. These things however are not directly observable and have to be infered. Once at the level of inference we may be right, or we may not be. Processes are observable, 'things' are not.
@@SolveEtCoagula93 Thank you so much.
I do now understand the why, thank you. There are indeed many things which remain more or less uncertain and possibly will remain so for a considerable period of time.
However, by necessity of certain restrictions that is how science has to be, particularly when describing observations at the the extremes of scale. At these scales you have no choice but to generate possible hypothesis and then validate or invalidate by experimentation. So whilst never being absolute, rather like calculus, you are moving ever closer to that absolute but can never get to it. I will try again to see if I can appreciate the agency of what he proposes.
@@yp77738yp77739 Glad to have been of some help. Sometimes ideas are more subtle than they seem at first and need working on in order to see them.
There is one last thing I would like to add which concerns this debate of processes vs the 'things' that cause them.
For most of us our view of reality is that we are brains inside of boney boxes. Our brain has no direct contact with the 'outside world', rather it has to form a construct via the sensory information which is continually entering its domain. According to this construct, the sensory data consists of electrical impulses which are filtered and processed by the brain, then used to form an image, or construct, of what we call reality.
The important thing here is that although we are aware of processes we are not directly aware of the 'things' that create the electrical impulses - the 'ding an sich' of Kant. Indeed, if we follow this argument a little deeper, even the construct of us being brains inside boney boxes, receiving eletrical data, cannot be truly known since it too is a nothing more than a construct.
For me, this is one of THE most fascinating ideas behind the whole process vs 'thing' debate and leads into all kinds of weird and strange lands.
Take care.
Whatever appears as separate and/or opposite, is in Reality - interrelated Continuum.
It is stranger than john can think.