Dennis Coffey
Kathleen and Chris,
Your postings were incredible, thought provoking and demanding of my re-reading them. With that said, I cannot engage meaningfully with Whitehead’s concept of God, and it is not because I am a hardcore reductionist because I am not one. I need to contemplate his (Whitehead’s) thinking much more.
I did find A. H. Johnson’s materials on religion, God, and other topics helpful. I intend to post regarding what he writes about religion. (It appears that one can be religious without believing in a God.) I struggled with this week’s required readings. Unfortunately, I put off the Johnson reading until the end; I regret that. I have a copy of the book in which this article appears, “Whitehead’s Philosophy of Civilization.” I have not read the entire book, but what I have read offers insights of which I was not aware regarding Whitehead. I look forward to reading it in its entirety.
The journey continues…
Dennis
Dr. Davis,
I took this posting to heart, and I have explored (far too much) the work of Crosby and Ferre. Our university (Appalachian State University) has an excellent collection of materials that these thinkers have written, especially those of Crosby. Crosby’s materials have great appeal, but I need to explore his thinking even more.
When reading the biography of Crosby, I discovered a new word, “demit.” Crosby used it when talking about his separation from the Presbyterian ministry in 1969. I had to look the word up, even though I had a pretty good idea what it means.
By the way, I am not denying the existence of God, I cannot at this point believe in a Whiteheadian concept of God. And, no, I don’t have my own concept of God.
Thanks for your posting.
Chris,
Food for thought.
I continue to struggle with the conclusion reached of “God” being (becoming) a rational necessity, at least that is what I think I have read. A passage that has helped my thinking is found in the 1992 edition of Revisioning Psychology by James Hillman. (Hillman, very often, is difficult to follow.) On page xvi he states:
“By soul, I mean first of all, a perspective [emphasis added] rather than a substance, a viewpoint toward things rather than a thing itself.”
I am trying to think of the Whiteheadian concept of God as a perspective, a viewpoint. Now, I wonder how this approach fits with the readings of this week.
Continuing to scratch my head.
Dennis
Chris,
Rich response. At what point in your life did you become introduced to Whitehead/process philosophy? Whitehead’s metaphysical framework is new to me. I am beginning to feel comfortable with it, but I am a loooong way from understanding it completely. Perhaps I never will, but I will keep trying.
Also, I truly enjoy your contributions in class.
Dennis
P.S. Retirement is great!
Kevin,
Based on your thorough explanation, I think I see how an experimenter can be assured that only one electron at a time will reach the slit and, subsequently, the metal plate behind the slit.
I have a friend who is a PhD trained electrical engineer who has attempted to explain to me what you just did. I keep asking him questions, and he seems to get impatient with me. There is one thing this materialist scientist said that surprised me. He talked about electrons actively seeking “a home.” I don’t think he was necessarily speaking metaphorically. He seemed to indicate that electrons have agency. I am convinced that electrons have agency.
There is a concept called “earthing” that is gaining acceptability. Participating in earthing is simple; all one has to do is stand barefooted on bare earth or concrete that is placed upon the bare ground. Alternatively, one can buy from Amazon grounding mats or sheets. What happens during earthing is excess electrons are moved from the body to ground. It works, at least it does for me.
Rambling too much,
Dennis
Hello Kevin,
When you say “REQIURES access to a metal pole,” I think you meant mental pole? Just kidding. 🙂 What I have to remember as I consider the process/Whiteheadian materials is that they are part of a metaphysical model and, thus, escape the normal proofs to which I have been accustomed. With that said, I resort to the test of: Does it make sense to me? So far, the tenets of the metaphysical model comport with my commonsense thinking.
I do want to ask you one thing. When you say “many people conflate the word ‘consciousness’ with ‘awareness’, two abilities which are emergent in higher order societies (of societies of societies… etc.),” do you mean that awareness and consciousness emerge distinct from one another? Is awareness part of consciousness?
Thanks for this posting.
Dennis
Kevin,
I enjoy your postings–they are thoughtfully done. Also, I have wondered how an experimenter can be certain that only one electron is going through a slit when performing the Young double-slit experiment. Heck, why did Young dream up the double-slit experiment initially.
Also, as a physics teacher, you can authoritatively tell me whether all electrons are identical to one another. If so, how is this possible? The more I have thought about this, I have considered the possibility that there is only one electron that is replicated repeatedly, quite possibly in some type of simulation. Also, if all electrons are identical to one another, whatever that means, how do we know that?
Wandering (and wondering) in the woods of ignorance. 🙂
Dennis
Hello Kevin,
I continue to wonder where the development of consciousness is going. Has it reached its acme (here on Earth)? Has the development of consciousness similar to what we have enjoyed occurred on other planets? Regarding your thinking about consciousness possibly extending all the way down, you seem to be implying that the force of consciousness may enjoy different strengths with its being strongest in humans. The truth is we don’t know. I think we must develop our own perspectives of consciousness that cannot necessarily be proved in any meaningful way.
I enjoyed reading your thinking.
Dennis
P.S. How long is a standard pen? 🙂
Tony and Kathleen,
I have always struggled with understanding Hammeroff and Penrose’s Orchestrated objective reduction theory. It has been a tough sale for me (and others); but that certainly doesn’t mean it (the theory) is wrong.
There is another theory promulgated by Riccardo Manzotti known as the spread mind. He wrote up his theory in The Spread Mind: Why Consciousness and the World are One. In the introduction to his book he states:
“IN THE SPREAD MIND, I present a view of nature that challenges the
traditional separation between appearance and reality, between experience and objects, and between mind and nature. I discuss and revise key notions—such as existence, experience, appearance, consciousness, representation, relation, causation, identity, and the now. This endeavor moves from a simple idea, namely that the thing that is my conscious experience is not an inner ghost but the very object I am conscious of. Perhaps surprisingly, my experience of an apple is the apple itself. The subject is the object. How is this possible? The proposed solution is that the separation between a physical object and a
mental world was the offshoot of an oversimplified notion of physical objects. If we understand that the external objects that populate our life do not exist autonomously but only relative to our bodies, we will no longer need to place our experience in an inner mental domain. Our experience will be one and the same with the physical objects that surround our bodies. Objects are not absolute, though. They are relative and, as a consequence, they are spread in space and time as our experience is—the two being the same.” (vii)Manzotti’s notion regarding consciousness is that it “does not take place inside our heads: one’s mind is the set of physical objects one’s body brings into existence” (26). Until recently I didn’t accept this theory, but now I don’t know. I have always been a hard subject-object divide person, and now that stance is softening.
An action that I now take is to look in the index of a book to see if Whitehead or process philosophy is itemized. Sure enough, Whitehead is mentioned in several spots in Manzotti’s book, primarily regarding Whitehead’s notion of Misplaced Concreteness (never heard of it).
Remember: Experience all the way down, and I don’t know where consciousness begins. 🙂
Dennis
Dr. Davis,
Last night’s session was outstanding! By the way, Dr. Hosinski’s book is excellent! I have ordered a copy (used).
Dennis
Hello Bill,
Thanks for your comment. Quite possibly, emergence has two meanings for some readers. In this context, I take as one product of emergence to be consciousness. I understand that one cannot forecast the outcome/product of a process that leads to emergence. Who would have thought that two molecules of hydrogen attached to one molecule of oxygen would result in water. I still don’t understand how that happens; similarly, I don’t understand how combinations of actual occasions results in consciousness. The process seems to draw on magic. 🙂 I am sure as I study more, I will understand more, my primary goal in studying process philosophy.
Dennis
Hello Kevin,
Seems like what you are stating is that there are gradations of consciousness. So-called lower life forms (I don’t look at life this way) may be conscious, but consciousness reaches its current acme in humans. Stating that seems to privilege humans, and I don’t mean to do that whatsoever.
I think Whitehead’s approach to consciousness is the best that I have seen. However, is saying that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon adequate? I want to know in as simple language as possible what take place in the emerging process. Whitehead states that “consciousness is the culminating pinnacle of subjective form arising from ‘higher phases’ of mental concrescence in human experience (PR, 162). What exactly does that mean? What are higher phases? What is meant by mental concrescence in human experience? I guess I am looking for a force that drives an entity to be conscious, for consciousness to emerge in that entity. Does this force impact all entities the same?
Oh well, just ruminating and rambling.
Dennis
Hey Thom,
My wife was an elementary education major at Berea; she never taught elementary school though she really would have been good at it. Instead, after having worked for the Social Security Administration, she earned a PhD in strategic management from UT-Knoxville and taught her full career for AppState. She is originally from Corbin, KY, and I am sure since you are from Morristown you know where Corbin is.
Believe it or not, I played two years of tennis for Berea; I was terrible but I had never played before attending Berea. I played in an era when we still used wooden rackets. I did manage to obtain a Wilson T2000 metal racket–I was still terrible. 🙂
Also, never grow up, but keep growing.
Dennis
Hello Thom,
I was happy to read your posting. Out of curiosity, do you ever get back to Johnson City? Also, what was your major at ETSU?
Still cold and windy here in Boone.
Dennis