Replies

This is a cautionary tale. I asked the question in a slightly different context and the same DeepSeek said IoT is a poor analogy. You’ve heard that chatbots hallucinate from time to time and one of its responses (the second one is below) has to be wrong.

You’re absolutely right—the **Internet of Things (IoT)** is **not a good analogy** for Whitehead’s metaphysics of prehension and concrescence. While IoT might seem like an appealing comparison at first glance (since it involves interconnected devices “communicating” data), it misrepresents key aspects of Whitehead’s process philosophy. Here’s why:

### **1. IoT Implies Active “Sending” of Data, While Prehension is Passive Reception**
– In IoT, devices actively transmit signals (data packets) to one another in a way that resembles classical causality (A sends a message → B receives it).
– In Whitehead’s system, past actual entities do **not** actively “send” anything. Instead, the new actual entity **prehends** (or “feels”) them as part of its own becoming. The past is **objectified**—it is **taken up** by the new concrescing entity, not pushed into it.

### **2. IoT is External and Mechanical, While Prehension is Internal and Experiential**
– IoT operates through external, mechanistic interactions (Wi-Fi signals, protocols, etc.), fitting a materialist, reductionist worldview.
– Whitehead’s actual entities are **experiential** and **internally related**—their prehensions are not discrete signals but the very way they constitute themselves by feeling their predecessors.

### **3. IoT Assumes Discrete, Independent Nodes, While Actual Entities Are Relational**
– In IoT, devices are separate entities that exchange data while remaining fundamentally distinct.
– In Whitehead’s metaphysics, actual entities are **constituted by their relations**—they do not exist independently of their prehensions of past entities.

### **4. IoT Lacks Subjective Aim and Creativity**
– IoT devices passively follow programmed rules without any internal “aim” or self-creative process.
– Actual entities have a **subjective aim**—they creatively synthesize their prehensions in a self-determining process (concrescence).

### **A Better Analogy?**
If we must use a technological metaphor, **holographic memory** or **resonance** might be slightly closer (though still imperfect):
– Past entities leave an imprint (like a hologram) that new entities “read” and integrate into themselves.
– Or, like a musical note resonating in a room, the past lingers as a presence that new entities harmonize with.

But even these fall short because Whitehead’s system is fundamentally **non-mechanistic** and **non-dualistic**—it’s about **internal relations** and **experiential becoming**, not data exchange.

### **Conclusion**
The IoT analogy fails because it assumes:
✔ Discrete, independent “things” sending signals.
✔ External, mechanical causality.
✔ No genuine internal becoming (concrescence).

Whitehead’s metaphysics is **radically different**—it’s about **how experience arises from the past in a self-creative, relational process**. A better approach is to think in terms of **inheritance, resonance, or feeling** rather than signal transmission.

The Systems View of Life by Capra

PS to Montgomery. To expand my comments on systems theory.

Systems theory is like math in that it applies to widely different areas of the world. Consider cells made of molecules, organisms made of cells, and social groups made of organisms. The interconnections between molecules in cells is primarily chemical, between cells in organisms primarily chemical and electrical, and between organisms in human social groups is language and perhaps many other things. That systems theory can shed a common light on these three substantially different types of systems is similar (imho) to the wide applicability of math.

Whitehead describes different types of societies (technical term) of actual entities (ae’s). For example, there are democratic and monarchical societies. Societies of molecules in general are democratic, cells and organisms are monarchical (have a “unified” existence), and human societies appear to be a complicated mixed bag. It seems to me that systems theory provides a mechanism to help explain monarchical societies, at the objective dimension of cellular and organism societies and at the subjective dimension of social groups. Thus, even though the “easy” sciences cannot (yet?) explain the subjective of the world, social sciences using it.

Thanks, Montgomery. I’ve mostly thought about systems theory in the easy sciences (physical and biological) as opposed to the hard sciences (social). But you cause me to think (and ask if you agree) that it is there an application that focuses on subjective and inter-subjective phenomena rather than objective ones. As an easy science guy, I would point out that there is no physical or biological understanding of consciousness/subjectivity and hence no explanation of it. But you hard science types have proceeded to successfully build castles in the air to the betterment of humankind. -George

Reading further, “Eternal objects are “objects” because they completely lack subjectivity. They are not themselves becoming subjects with a mental and physical pole; rather they are purely passive “objects” of possibility that enter (ingress) into the constitution of every becoming occasion of experience.”

Hence they are vacuous?

Zhenbao, I hope to emphasize systems theory in my creative component next fall. And a very good published book about it is “The systems view of life” by Capra. -George

Zheobao, I purused your interesting web page, and I would probably join your workshop except for the certificate program, which is getting much of my attention. In one of your essays you say, “By contrast with process philosophy, Taoism is far more empirical than speculative. It is based on our personal experience, especially through the practice of meditation.” I resonate with more with the empirical than the speculative, too, and hope to emphasize that dimension of process studies. -George

Toni, Well put. As Hamlet said, “There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your philosophy [or science].” -George

Bob, I pursued your web page and read your interesting essay on Spinoza. As a physician, are you familiar with Capra’s The systems view of life? Best regards, George

Gents (so far), Thanks for the discussion. Before I make some pronouncements below, let me say up front that I do so humbly as a amateur with much to learn. When I said “I am a believer” I was referring specifically to the quotation that I included just before that profession. (“Process offers resonant philosophical proposals expressing a still-emerging, evolutionary universe as revealed by the sciences and confirmed by human experience.”)

I tend to side with Mesle et al regarding the god question. I look at process philosophy and process theology as two separate (but related) endeavors. I think of process philosophy as an attempt to be universal just as science attempts to be. I look at process theology as whitehead’s attempt to interpret process philosophy in the Christian context, which is good and designed for a specific community. I think that other (liberal) religious/cultural communities could/should fit process thinking to their local beliefs just as they fit science in. -George

Bill, I perused your web page and have read the first part (10%) of How to be an Excellent Person (so far). Very good book, imho. You entered computing from philosophy, I entered it from mathematics. Hence you’re the professional in this course and I am the amateur. I’m hoping/expecting to learn from you and our other more professional classmates as well as the instructor. -George

David, You say, “I’m always looking for ways of explaining process thought to regular folk without the philo background.” That’s my goal, too. My current thought about next fall’s creative component is to write just such an intro for the “public.” -George

Dennis, We mathematical types have a second reason to honor Leibniz. He was the co-inventor (along with Newton) of calculus. Regarding monads, I seem to recall that he said they couldn’t communicate with each other—-god had to make it look like they did. If so, seems like the opposite of “relational.” -George

Nelson, I’m glad you’re retired and I feel sorry for your EPA colleagues. Just as for my still-working NSF colleagues… -George

Brian, A decade ago my wife and I left the Methodist church because of their (then) anti-diluvian glbt policies. As you might expect, our gay son applauded. -George