Replies

There seems to be some trouble with inserting hyperlinks. Here they are:

BBC Science Focus: http://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/what-cells-in-the-human-body-live-the-longest

Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/our-bodies-replace-billions-of-cells-every-day/

I think that the phrase “No one is an island!” could be taken as a fundamental element to process thinking because this metaphysics posits that EVERYTHING becomes actual only through interaction. The essentiality of interaction and connection is what I think make this way of thinking so productive and beautiful!

One of the challenges of Whiteheadian philosophy is, I think, his use of language and much of the challenge to the reader of Process and Reality is getting a hand of the lingo and important words which ANW redefines! I think that from the process theoretic perspective, “experience” doesn’t require the subject of the event to be conscious. Even electrons and protons have “experience”! I think (but could be incorrect) that for Whitehead “experience” and “interaction” equate to the same event. The fundamentals of reality, the basis of all that is, are interactions, not objects. This is, I think, one of the fundamental and controversial elements of ANW’s thinking: all reality is made up of interactions, not things of mass.

I agree that God is best understood “[n]ot the ‘unmoved mover’, but the ‘most moved mover,’ the supremely related One.”

Indeed as a former physics professor and an experimentalist, I would prove to students that because of the conservation of momentum there is never, in fact, an unmoved mover. Only things that interact with others can be said to exist!

I think that another way of thinking about the notion of the beauty in contrasts or of the statement that “beauty needs contrasts” is to consider the use of harmony and dissonance in music. When I was an undergraduate considering majoring in music, I was taught that the beauty of almost all music come comes from the resolution of dissonance into a more pleasant harmonies. In the course of playing a musical piece, “accidentals” or dissonant notes provide tension that can be resolved into less discordant harmonies, giving the music a comfortable “resolution” to more pleasant sounding harmonies.

However even beautiful, pleasant harmonies contain contrasts! The contrasts come through the relationships between the frequencies of the two or more notes being played in harmony. Music without contrast would just be the sound of a continuous single tone. Not many people would pay to hear this concert! (Though it has been done which, like the unpainted, white canvas sheets hung in art galleries, causes the listener, to question the notion of beauty.)

I think that you have a wonderful point, Kathleen! It also seems to me that it’s rather obvious that there is continuity of becoming. That can explain how actual entities can have a history, I think.

Yeah, Dennis, I also believe that Dr. McDaniel said “mine” not “mind”. That’s what I was trying to say in the second paragraph of my comment. He only made a tiny typographic mistake which confused me tremendously until I was able to pull out the book and see that it was an error!

Having been born and raised in the mountains near Boulder, CO, I also enjoy visiting my “old” friends, the mountains!

Interesting poem, Dennis! 🙂
I think that I get your point.
Thanks!

Kathleen Wakefield’s comments certainly amplifies and elucidates my comment here! 🤓

Since I lived in Japan for one year following my undergraduate education and read a lot about Buddhism. I found Zen particularly fascinating, so you could say that I too am someone whose Buddhist-influenced. ; ) I meditate every day for about 1/2 an hour and, though some people might call what I do “contemplative prayer”, I use the term “meditate” purposely because I try to quite my mind and don’t offer up even mentally any requests or demands. I breathe slowly and, though I try to quiet my mind, I often concentrate on understanding myself as only a conscious sprout of the earth. Strangely, this tends to quiet my mind.

Concerning theism, you’re right it totally depends on how “God” is defined. I understand “God” to be the lure forward to more enlivenment. In this way, I understand “God” to be a part of everything all the time. This makes me a panentheist, I guess!

Dennis, having taught physics (particularly quantum mechanics) for many years, I can confidently say that almost every teaching of physics will talk about electrons “feeling” the pull of protons. Certainly, both electrons and protons experience the electromagnetic interaction! Their motions are both are affected by the electromagnetic interaction which is determined by other nearby electric bodies (even if we can’t be 100% sure of where they are!). This interaction is an essential component of their reality. So, it’s fair to say that even fundamental particles “feel” or “experience” the effects of the presence of other electrically charged bodies (and fields) in their neighborhood.

Consciousness is an entirely different matter! My understanding of consciousness is that it requires a vibrant and responsive organization. Most every entity experiences interactions with other things; however, many might only respond to these external influences. Consciousness is more than merely responding to external stimuli; it also implies an at least partial inner awareness of these influences. This requires an internal, dynamic organization which is way more complex than fundamental particles!

These are my thoughts, at least!

Thanks!

This Kevin Pettit, also a participant via Zoom (from Boulder, CO).

Concerning your thoughts about non-compassion, it seems to me since all of creation is connected, I agree that any instance of non-compassion effects all of creation. However, I suppose that the problem is that we all exist via the destruction of other life forms, the proper evolutionary trick is to ensure that each individual make an effort to further and deepen the existence of beauty, intensity, peace and justice of the universe. This, I think, could also call creation for short.

Michael, most certainly to us Prof. McDaniel is the authority on the relation of the Big Bang to process thinking and, it seems to me, what he has said regarding God as the lure toward new forms of becoming is a good summary of this relation and God’s role in the unfolding of creation. Also, while I used to be a physics professor, I was a condensed matter experimentalist and this means that I’m not super knowledgeable with details of present-day theories of the Big Bang and what might have been “previous” to it; however, I have studied the physics of general relativity and do know one thing that is hard for everyone to grasp: we seem to have collected evidence that there, apparently, was a Big Bang that created energy, matter, SPACE and TIME.

While most people can grasp thoughts of the creation of energy and matter, notions of the creation of space and time are very difficult for mere mortals to think about. “Before” the Big Bang neither space nor time existed!!! So, it’s not like before the Big Bang there was only empty space sitting around for a long time. “Before” the Big Bang there was NO space and NO time! This essential “singularity” implies that no one can ever have any understanding of what was “before” this Big Bang! (I hope you realize why I’ve put quotations around “before”: it is impossible to define time order when time itself doesn’t exist.)

As a student of process theology, it seems to me that it is entirely reasonable to understand God as being involved the Big Bang. More accurately, perhaps, I think one could say that the event of the Big Bang is the supreme and first example of God’s existence. I don’t think that we should think of God as existing before the Big Bang and “causing” it; I believe that the Big Bang could be seen as the first divine event!

Eric and Charles,
I’m quite new to process thinking and haven’t really thought terribly much about Whitehead’s understanding of “extensive continuum”, “prehension”, or “actual entities” until beginning this course earlier this month. However, I am quite knowledgeable about physics, as it was my BA major and the subject I studied for my Ph.D. degree. My field of study in graduate school was atomic, condensed matter physics, and so quantum mechanics something I considered daily and also taught at the University of Illinois (where I got my Ph.D.) and Carleton College (where I taught physics).

When the actual entity of an electron approaches two narrowly spaced slits in a thin metal foil and is observed to pass through the foil by striking a film which records the position of the electron after it has passed through either slit in the metal foil, a single position is observed. When many electrons are shown on the metal foil with a low enough intensity that we are completely sure that each electron passes through the foil one at a time, the resultant pattern of the spray of electrons which passed through the two slits of the metal foil clearly indicate that each electron’s passage through the slits in the foil is affected by there being TWO slits, not just one.

The only way physicists have determined how to think about this experimental observation is two say that the electron in fact passes through both slits and it’s resultant motion is affected by the fact that the electron’s position is not uniquely determined, so it can pass through both slits at the same time! (Hence the need for a wave function describing the position of the traveling electron in the process of moving from the emitter to the final screen where it’s position is determined.)

Now, as I indicated, I am not completely sure of the following statements concerning prehension and process thought, but I believe it fair to say the the actual entity of the electron, as it passes through the entity of the double-slit foil, “prehends” the existence of both slits which affects its motion. Thus, without being conscious or uniquely localized until it runs into the film which specifies a particular location, the electron “is aware of” there being two slits, even though when we look we only find it in one place!

I could be misunderstanding the meaning of prehension, but I think that the observation of double-slit diffraction by electrons described above might be one possible example of what Whitehead means by prenhension. However, someone else who knows process thought better than I might be able to straighten me out!