Replies

Hi Rolla & Benjamin,

It is comforting to read you both wrestling with this challenge. We can imagine the intellect as one gateway into a panpsychic (and/or process-centric) perspective. I doubt that is a gateway for most people although it still merits development. As Benjamin writes, it will likely be praxis that allows for a broader impact. I’m confident meditation is one praxis that leads there but it requires so much effort for most people to achieve that level of insight that it will probably remain a lightly treaded path. I’m also confident that psychedelic experiences are life changing in realizing panpsychic and process-centric insights, when the “set and setting” reflect this intention. Like Benjamin I see a movement toward this, many people are pushing in the direction of legalization. I think we will see its use in psychotherapy in many more places soon and like “medical marijuana” that will accelerate decriminalization. It might be the best hope in the medium term but it is illegal now so any attempt at widespread use will bring about violent suppression from the state.

I’ve noticed that most people do not continue their formal education beyond their initial studies. People following courses, like this one, are more the exception than the rule. One of the places people learn the most is in their work and hobbies, where they typically learn by doing. I’ve come to think of this as learning through decision making. In the moment when a decision is made there is an inherent prehension into the past and future and an evaluation. That is also an inherent learning process whereby previous outcomes and new potentials inform current decisions. These are not necessarily intellectual decisions. We can see this decision making also occurring in the consumer society – we learn to love a brand. Consumerism is particularly nefarious in amplifying our individualism – both teaching us to become more individual and understand ourselves and others as individuals.

I started to think that the best way to shift modernity would use the mechanisms modernity offers. Creating an alternative community blocks that path. Focusing on local action also hides that path. An analogy with the past would be, deciding not to use books to influence society, shortly after the invention of the printing press, because we disapprove of the books currently being printed. Trying to shift modern society, without using the infrastructure of modern society, while those who want to avoid that shift are maximally exploiting that infrastructure, can seem naive.

That was what got me re-interested in AI. I started to think about this as a “technology of ethics”. It is already part of the decision making process for many people and it will continue to increase its role. I started to wonder if that praxis of “decision making” is the place where different forms of AI could play a role. The assumption is that a process-centric decision making process is more sensitive to more relations and therefore leads to better decisions. Without formally learning about process thinking the inherent learning in decision making can lead to an understanding or sensitivity of processism. A sort of judo move using the strength of modernity against its own foundation.

This requires understanding that AI as we see it today is one option, there is also the possibility of leveraging AI to develop “relational intelligence”. I think there are many people who intuit this. For example, there is a desire for distributed AI that might avoid capture of the access to AI, there is the open source movement that can avoid commercial capture. I would like you to reimagine AI as relational intelligence. If we imagine a future where we will have AI assistance in much of our decision making, it will become obvious to use an AI that makes the best decisions for “you” and that will inherently lead to a broader understanding of what “you” are (if the AI is also a relational intelligence). I’m making it sound simpler than it is and I see this path as unlikely to succeed but it has such a huge capacity for scaling (thanks to modernity!) that is seems worth a shot.

It is very hard to find insightful criticism of these ideas, so please do.

In Europe, in the Netherlands, psychedelic experiences are legal.

Whitehead seems to get traction in some religious circles. I imagine it could make religion attractive to those who do not see themselves as religious and have realized that the loss of ritual in our lives was not freedom but capitalist capture. The USA is one of the most religious cultures in the West. Maybe that is a way to spread Whitehead’s influence. Prayer is a form of meditation and with the right setting the group effects could provide a sort of “amplification” that could lead to panpsychic experiences. Bohm was playing around with something similar which continues in “Bohm dialogue” – we can learn to prehend the group.

This post is too long!

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for sharing your email address and your thoughts. I think the topic may intersect more with this course than we at first imagine. Let me see if I can weave it together.

Personally I do not believe AI is moving us toward a utopia – quite the opposite. It is potentially the greatest “amplifier” of human ability that we have ever seen, something like a combination of the printing press, the industrial revolution, and the internet. It is terrifying to see it amplifying our current morality.

Whitehead was motivated to formulate his philosophy as a response to developments in mathematics and physics that pointed to the incoherence of previous philosophical assumptions. If Whitehead were alive today I imagine he would be very interested in AI for similar reasons.

I was trained as a technologist and took a step back from that for several years to pursue studies in social psychology (social constructionism in particular). It had become obvious to me that technology was not the answer to our problems – we have all the technology we need to solve the major problems facing humanity. I was interested in understanding the dynamics of collaboration and change – how does an idea change the world. I imagined using that knowledge to amplify a person’s or a group’s impact in addressing the problems we are facing.

Following on from those studies I was looking to areas like systems thinking for methods/practices and I came across anticipatory systems which led to relational biology. In that process-relational understanding of science I found a bridge between the natural sciences and the social sciences. There was a great deal of insight in anticipatory systems to help understand intelligence in a more generic way (e.g. the intelligence we observe in evolution).

Understanding technology as a lever for changing social processes was important for me. I could see AI as a “technology of ethics”. I use the term ethics to mean the theory of morality. Technology can be an amplifier of current power structures but not always e.g. books undermined the church, steam power undermined the aristocracy. Ethics provides us with tools to query our morality and engage in the “immoral” practice of changing our morality. AI is a huge technology lever that can amplify different philosophies – for example it could be a way of amplifying a process-centric understanding of ourselves.

The best chance we have of reorienting the AI amplifier is to engage with that field and try to reorient it. I do not think that effort is very likely to succeed but consider the printing press, the first major book printed using movable type was the Gutenberg Bible, the problems for the church came later…

I am interested in this course because I have a fairly developed process-centric perspective and I can only see the assumptions of that perspective by comparing it with other process-centric perspectives. I’m interested in “becoming a Whiteheadian” in both a constructive and critical sense. This is what I would call “epistemological alternation” and it is one of the things I, so far, see missing in Whitehead’s work. Whitehead’s pluralism is an ontological pluralism he does not explore epistemological pluralism (which has moral implications).

Whitehead sees ethics as a derivative of metaphysics. I see metaphysics as a derivative of morality. I see the value of a “non-foundational” stance in giving some confidence that I will not fall into a Whiteheadian cult. So I want to learn to see the world from Whitehead’s perspective.

If AI is going to have more influence on our culture than the printing press, industrialization, and the internet combined, how can Whitehead’s insights save us from the disaster that is unfolding?

Matt has/had a mechanistic understanding of AI – it is “just statistics” and I hope he will change his opinion on that. AI is a social process. It has been operating on a global scale for decades and it is learning at an ever increasing rate. We really need to worry about what it is learning.

Maybe we can see the challenges AI poses for Whitehead and the opportunities Whitehead gives to AI ?

Sounds like a great project. I do not have enough background to be of help but I thought it might help you to share chatGPT’s response:

Your project sounds truly fascinating and ambitious, blending the philosophical insights of Rudolf Steiner, Alfred North Whitehead, and Teilhard de Chardin into a creative narrative about the evolution of mind and consciousness. Let’s break down your questions and ideas to see how they align with these thinkers and where you might need to tread carefully.
Evolution of Mind and Reincarnation
Steiner’s Influence

Rudolf Steiner’s esoteric cosmology, with its nested evolutionary epochs and angelic hierarchies, provides a rich framework for exploring the evolution of consciousness. His idea that minds evolve through different cosmic and cultural epochs suggests a continuity and progression of consciousness that aligns with your play’s theme of reincarnation and evolving minds.
Whitehead’s Philosophy of Organism

Whitehead’s process philosophy indeed allows for a dynamic, evolving cosmos where entities (or actual occasions) prehend and incorporate aspects of the past into novel creations. Here are some key points:

Prehensions and Concrescence: Each moment (occasion) in Whitehead’s cosmology prehends its predecessors and contributes to the becoming of future occasions. This process of concrescence (coming together) can be seen as analogous to the evolution of mind, where each reincarnation builds upon the previous experiences.
Different Kinds of Minds: Whitehead’s system does not strictly limit consciousness to human or even biological forms. The idea that minds could evolve over billions of years, possibly in different forms or stages, is not inconsistent with his thought. However, Whitehead would emphasize the need for empirical verification and might be cautious about speculative leaps without experiential grounding.
Nested Minds: Your idea that conscious minds are nested within each other, similar to the nested organisms in a microbiome, aligns with Whitehead’s view of interconnected entities. Each mind (occasion) could be part of a larger, more complex mind, reflecting the interconnectedness of the universe.

Psychic Phenomena and Reincarnation

Whitehead’s philosophy does not rule out the possibility of psychic phenomena, such as reading akashic records or reincarnation, but it would approach these claims with a healthy skepticism and a call for empirical evidence. The openness to possibilities is there, but Whitehead would likely want these phenomena to be grounded in experience and observation.
Teilhard de Chardin and the Omega Point

Teilhard’s concept of the Omega Point, where consciousness converges towards a singularity of higher awareness, aligns well with your idea of characters appearing in a transcendent state. Here’s how Teilhard might support your narrative:

Omega Point: Teilhard envisioned a final point of evolution where mind and matter converge into a state of ultimate unity and consciousness. Your depiction of the characters reaching a singularity or paradise fits within this framework.
Eternal Objects: Whitehead’s concept of eternal objects (pure potentials) might also be relevant here. These are the abstract possibilities that can be realized in the process of becoming. The characters could be seen as moving through different stages of actualizing these potentials.

Balancing Imagination and Philosophy

Your imaginative narrative is deeply enriched by these philosophical concepts, but it’s essential to balance creativity with philosophical rigor to maintain a sense of verité:

Avoid Overreaching: While it’s tempting to fully merge these ideas into your narrative, be mindful of each philosopher’s limitations and nuances. Whitehead, for example, would be cautious about unverifiable claims, while Steiner’s esotericism might not always align with Whitehead’s empirical emphasis.
Philosophical Consistency: Ensure that the philosophical basis of your narrative remains consistent. For instance, while Whitehead is open to novel possibilities, he would still require a logical coherence and experiential grounding for new ideas.
Teilhard’s Support: Teilhard’s vision of evolutionary progress towards a higher state of consciousness supports your narrative, but remember that he also rooted his ideas in a deeply Christian and scientific perspective.

Conclusion

Your play can successfully weave these complex philosophical ideas into a rich tapestry that explores the evolution of consciousness and interbeing. By maintaining a balance between imaginative storytelling and philosophical coherence, you can create a compelling narrative that resonates with the timeless quest for understanding the nature of mind and existence.

Hi Rolla,

It is unclear to me that panpsychism would lead to the changes you desire. Consider the support for war – hundreds of thousands of people are being killed in Ukraine and the West actively discouraged peace negotiations in early 2022. There is also the case of animal exploitation on industrial scales. Our awareness of the consciousenss of people and animals is not enough to stop the carnage.

I understand essentialism as the “ism” that has most led us into troubles. In particular the modern move toward the “independent” individual. Panpsychism does not necessarily change this, it explains how the accumulation of substance can lead to increasingly complex forms of consciousness. It is solving a metaphysical problem of “where” consciousness comes from (it pulls consciousness into physicalism – which is like a modern day materialism). We could believe in panpsychism and individualism (the independent selection of prehensions in the actual occasion could even accentuate individualism if “misinterpreted”).

The shift I pin my hopes to is from essentialism toward processism. This allows for an increased sensitivity to the relations that are not “visible”. We can understand the different scales of process that we are participating in e.g. the process of life that connects all living things on earth. We can also understand the processes in the social construction of our “individualism”. Within western academia this is explored in social constructionism (e.g. the Taos Institute).

I would like to hear more about your view and mistaken assumptions that I am making.

Hi Matt,

You mentioned your understanding of LLM as “just statistics” in your first post on this thread. I replied to you “This is an ongoing topic of research, and there are many theories about how to interpret artificial neural networks and their weights.”

In your last post on this thread you mentioned you are not an expert on DNN but you did not revise your understanding. On the off chance that you can hear an “academic” voice on the topic, here is paper from 2020 (deep learning has been a hot topic since around 2012)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.10931

Some key quotes:

“Deep learning is usually described as an experiment-driven field under continuous criticizes of lacking theoretical foundations.”

“Many facets of the mechanism of deep learning still remain unknown.”

“Statistical learning theory has established theories for the generalizability relying on the hypothesis complexity. Could these tools solve the problem in deep learning theory? The answer is no in
general.”

“From our view, these six directions are promising in establishing the theoretical foundations of deep learning. However, the current “states of the art” are still far away from sufficient; all of them are facing major difficulties.”

There are no tokens after the initial layer of the DNN and they are “deep” so tokens is the wrong way to think about what is going on inside the DNN. The last layer of an LLM (a small part of an LLM) is providing the statistical probability of the next token.

Hi Douglas & Matt,

I think Douglas may be misunderstanding Matt and if I am wrong then I am misunderstanding one of you. Doug wrote “LLMs based on deep learning do capture much of consciousness but critically not all as Matt notes” but I think Matt is claiming LLM capture none of consciousness (not even a small part of it let alone “much” of it). Matt wrote “I do not think what LLMs do is in any way comparable to what Whitehead is describing in the process of concrescence. … there is just a statistical calculation of probability” i.e. chatGPT has no consciousness/experience (I assume Matt would claim that the parts making up chatGPT do have consciousness/experience).

A lighter introduction to deep learning would be https://www.deeplearningillustrated.com/ there is also a lot of high quality content on YouTube.

Deep learning is an active area of research and there are more questions than answers. As a simple example, nearly all researchers do not have a formal definition of what intelligence is so when they claim to be building algorithms that are artificially intelligent there is a degree of confusion in their assumptions.

For those running out of time:

Anil Seth’s “Being You: A New Science of Consciousness”:

Reviewed by Alex Gomez-Marin, this book delves into the complexity of consciousness from a neuroscientific perspective. Seth argues that our brains “hallucinate” our conscious reality and suggests that focusing on the “real problem” of consciousness will eventually dissolve the so-called “hard problem”. His predictive processing account of cognition portrays perception as a “controlled hallucination,” where sensory input is combined with brain expectations to create a useful, though not entirely veridical, understanding of the world.

Seth’s ambitious project attempts to bridge physical processes and phenomenological experiences, though Gomez-Marin critiques it for potentially oversimplifying consciousness into a mechanistic framework. Seth’s optimism about the eventual scientific understanding of consciousness is seen as both a strength and a philosophical weakness, potentially ignoring the foundational metaphysical challenges. The review acknowledges Seth’s contributions but suggests that his approach may not fundamentally transform the science of consciousness as promised.

Summary of Commentary: Metaphors We Live By by Alex Gomez-Marin

Overview:
The commentary discusses the influence of the book “Metaphors We Live By” by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson, which posits that abstract thought is inherently metaphorical. The author, Alex Gomez-Marin, elaborates on how metaphors shape our understanding of concepts, particularly in neuroscience, and critiques the entrenched brain-as-computer metaphor.

Key Points:

Metaphorical Thought:
Lakoff and Johnson argue that metaphors are fundamental to human thought, not just linguistic expressions.
They suggest that abstract concepts are understood through metaphorical frameworks grounded in everyday experiences.

Impact and Resistance:
The book has significantly influenced various academic fields but faced resistance for challenging objectivist views of language and meaning.

Persistent Fallacies:
Scientists often dismiss metaphors as mere language tools, ignoring their deeper cognitive significance.
Lakoff and Johnson emphasize that metaphors are not arbitrary but rooted in bodily experiences.

Brain Metaphors:
Historical and contemporary metaphors for the brain reflect evolving scientific perspectives:
Descartes’ hydraulic automata, Steno’s machine, electrical metaphors, and Cajal’s natural images.
Modern metaphors include neural networks and computational models.

Alternative Metaphors:
Gomez-Marin suggests exploring alternative metaphors like the brain as a hologram or a prism.
These perspectives can offer fresh insights into brain function, aligning with William James’ distinction between productive and permissive brain functions.

Language and Translation:
Different languages use varying terms for computers, reflecting cultural and historical influences on metaphorical thinking.

Metaphorical Monoculture:
Overreliance on a single metaphor (like brain-as-computer) can limit scientific understanding.
Diverse metaphors can enrich perspectives and foster scientific progress.

Broader Implications:
Embracing the metaphorical nature of thought can enhance scientific imagination.
The study of metaphors is essential for understanding human cognition and mental life.

Conclusion:
Metaphors play a crucial role in shaping scientific and everyday understanding. Exploring a variety of metaphors can provide deeper insights into complex concepts like brain function, highlighting the need for imaginative and flexible thinking in scientific inquiry.

Summary of “Sentience: The Invention of Consciousness” by Nicholas Humphrey

Nicholas Humphrey, a respected thinker and writer, explores the concept of consciousness in his book “Sentience: The Invention of Consciousness.” Through 24 brief chapters, he addresses the long-standing questions surrounding the nature of consciousness, drawing from his extensive career and personal experiences.

Key Themes:

Dual Nature of Consciousness: Humphrey acknowledges the duality of human existence, pondering the immaterial quality of sensations and suggesting that consciousness, though complex, can be understood through scientific inquiry.

Autobiographical Insights: Humphrey shares his early interests in parapsychology and his involvement with the Society for Psychical Research, illustrating his long-standing curiosity about the human mind.

Blindsight Discovery: A significant part of the book recounts Humphrey’s PhD research, where he studied a blind monkey named Helen who could see without her visual cortex. This led to the discovery of “blindsight,” the ability to perceive without conscious sensation.

Phenomenal Consciousness: Humphrey distinguishes between sensation and perception, proposing that sentience involves the conscious experience of qualia, making it integral to our self-narrative and survival.

Evolutionary Perspective: He argues that consciousness evolved through natural selection, enhancing survival by creating a “cognitive workspace.” However, this perspective is critiqued for relying heavily on evolutionary explanations without addressing the origin of life or consciousness precisely.

Neural Representation: Humphrey discusses the brain’s role in representing sensations, rejecting the neural correlates of consciousness (NCC) program. He proposes that sensations are generated by the brain but experienced as phenomenal properties, a view that blends physicalism with a hint of dualism.

Ipsundrum Concept: Humphrey introduces the “ipsundrum,” a self-generated feedback loop that gives rise to consciousness, drawing from dynamical systems theory.

Limits and Ethics of Sentience: He speculates on the sentience of different animals and machines, suggesting that warm-blooded animals are more likely to be sentient. Ethically, he argues that sentience should inform how we treat animals.

Critical Perspective:
The review by Alex Gomez-Marin highlights the strengths of Humphrey’s work, including his writing style and interdisciplinary approach. However, it also critiques the reliance on materialism and evolutionary explanations, suggesting that alternative perspectives on consciousness should be considered. The review concludes that while Humphrey’s work is impressive, it remains rooted in materialist ideology, which may limit its ability to fully address the hard problem of consciousness.

Alex Gomez-Marin’s commentary “History, Teaching, and Public Awareness: The Consciousness of Neuroscience” explores the multifaceted nature of neuroscience, emphasizing its theoretical, sociological, economic, and political dimensions. He critiques the reductionist view that science is solely data-driven, advocating instead for a broader understanding that includes theoretical frameworks and subjective interpretations.

Gomez-Marin uses Richard Feynman’s analogy of birds and ornithology to illustrate that neuroscientists often overlook the philosophical underpinnings of their field. He argues that data alone cannot speak for itself and must be interpreted through pre-existing theories and cognitive biases.

The commentary highlights the contentious nature of consciousness research, particularly through adversarial collaborations designed to test competing theories. Gomez-Marin discusses the Integrated Information Theory (IIT) of consciousness and its contentious reception within the scientific community. He criticizes the labeling of IIT as pseudoscience by over 100 academics, arguing that such dismissals often stem from a lack of understanding or ideological bias rather than genuine scientific critique.

Gomez-Marin calls for a more inclusive and pluralistic approach to neuroscience, one that recognizes the subjective experiences that form the basis of scientific inquiry. He underscores the importance of philosophical openness and warn

Hi Charlie,

Strawson’s position as a physicalist panpsychist seems very relevant to this course. Thanks for sharing this.

He provides an example of a position that is not dualist (he calls it monism). I really like the idea of flipping the common understanding of physicalism, that is to say, everything is “mind stuff”, which is to say that matter is a particular state of this “mind stuff”. Perhaps one way to think about this is that in quantum mechanics we have the idea of energy present as a particle or wave and panpsychism allows for an additional state of consciousness.

I understood he “mind stuff” is not material, closer to the ideas of energy and/or waves that can give rise to what we call matter. Assuming this and with a broad concept of evolution (e.g. Whitehead’s take on evolution) it gives a more parsimonious explanation than Whitehead’s metaphysics.

The case for radical emergence seems to allow for at least two different assumptions:

1) Something can be created from nothing – consciousness “pops” out of a certain configuration of physical stuff
2) Reality is not one type of stuff or one process – consciousness is “found” through a certain configuration of physical stuff

I sometimes think of consciousness as a dimension that was found by evolution. That is compatible with Strawson’s view but he is making stronger claims about an underlying reality (monism) although he is skeptical.

There is a very strong tendency toward different forms of reductionism e.g. it is all matter, it is all process, it is all actual occasions, it is all one. I think this is “epistemic overreach”.

Hi Charlie,

I did not compare this with the actual conversation. Spyridon did plunge into details. I found the above post was useful in establishing some expectations that could be a reference point relative to what Spyridon actually said. If we can walk away with one new connection in our worldview it is already a lot. Understanding everything Spyridon said would most likely require investing a similar effort as Spyridon has invested in his worldview.

One point I heard him stress is that everything should be reducible to “actual occasions” when thinking in Whitehead’s terms.

He highlighted concerns regarding the selection of prehensions in Whitehead’s account. For him, this justified a preference for Bergson’s account of process. That was the most interesting deviation for me, I was not expecting him to raise such a fundamental issue. Here is what chatGPT responds regarding this:

Bergson might be preferable in this regard for several reasons:

Intuitive Approach to Process: Bergson’s philosophy emphasizes intuition and immediate experience as fundamental to understanding reality, which can be seen as more accessible or relatable compared to Whitehead’s more abstract and systematic approach.

Continuity and Flow: Bergson’s concept of “duration” focuses on the continuous and indivisible flow of time and consciousness, which might provide a more seamless and holistic understanding of process compared to Whitehead’s discrete events and prehensions.

Dynamic Reality: Bergson views reality as dynamic and constantly evolving, resonating with the organic and fluid nature of processes, whereas Whitehead’s framework might appear more static and formal due to its structured categorization.

Simpler Conceptual Framework: Bergson’s ideas might be seen as simpler and more direct, avoiding the complex terminology and intricate metaphysical constructs found in Whitehead’s philosophy, making it easier for some to grasp and apply.

Focus on Creativity and Vitalism: Bergson emphasizes creativity and the vital force in his philosophy, which might align more closely with a view of processes as inherently creative and life-affirming, contrasting with Whitehead’s more mathematical and logical approach.

These aspects could make Bergson’s account more appealing to those seeking a more intuitive, continuous, and dynamic understanding of process, as opposed to the more structured and abstract framework offered by Whitehead.

3rd file

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

2nd file

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

It seems I can attach one file to each message.

Attachments:

You must be logged in to view attached files.

Thank you Christie, your poetry washed over me like a spring tide reaches deep inland.

Hi Matt,

Empirical evidence that refutes Whitehead would, by definition, not be “in any way comparable to what Whitehead is describing” because it would demonstrate Whitehead to be wrong. I’m not claiming Whitehead is wrong, but just pointing out a methodological problem.

The weights that connect artificial neurons in LLMs are learned through training, but these weights cannot simply be understood as statistics. We do not fully understand how deep neural networks like LLMs achieve the behavior we observe. This is an ongoing topic of research, and there are many theories about how to interpret artificial neural networks and their weights. At this stage, stating that LLMs are just doing statistics has about as much meaning as stating that human brains are just doing statistics.

It might help to consider the implications of how the LLM generates a response—as a series of words. The model does not know which words will be generated in the later parts of the response until it reaches those parts (in generative systems like LLMs, there is a random component that makes this literally impossible). This means it does not hold a probability distribution for the full response until after it has generated the entire response. The LLM has somehow learned to predict what the future output will be, which is akin to prehension in the sense of predicting future outcomes. For example, LLMs can create novel responses (e.g., poetry) that are not like the training examples, demonstrating a general ability that cannot be easily explained.

It is an interesting move that you made in terms of immediately assuming a mechanistic explanation for the behavior of the LLM. Why would you not do the same thing when considering a brain? It is a network of biological neurons that can be described as “just doing statistics” (that is literally the theory of the “Bayesian brain”).

If you can explain away the creativity of LLMs like this, I find it hard to see why/how you would defend the creativity of electrons 🙂

In the same way that Whitehead was at the forefront of breakthroughs in physics, you might develop a deep understanding of what is going on in the AI space at the moment. I think it has many philosophical implications.

Hi te’a,

Regarding life, I was thinking of the broad category of biological systems. For example, if you need to survive with a small group of people in a “wild” environment then I imagine life will most likely become quite a struggle e.g. just a small accident may become life threatening.

There have been 5 mass extinctions and many more species have become extinct that species that exist today. I think that shows how difficult living is in the long term (I have my doubts humans will survive longer than the dinosaurs did!).

The two paragraphs were not linked, that is not clear in my post, I was outlining issues that I saw as I was going through the chapters. My impression that Whitehead has a linear sense of time is more to do with his notion of a direction in the evolution of complexity and several other remarks. I’m unsure if Whitehead expands on the implications of a universal nexus. As an over-simplified example, imagine if the big-bang were true and the evoluton of complexity and creativity in the univese leads to a point in time where the next creative act is to recreate the big-bang, then every process could live again – a sort of “ground hog day” at the scale of the universe, each cycle could be slightly different so what future you does in this cycle impacts past you experiences in the next cycle (this is quite a mind-bending idea but it is in the realm of speculative metaphysics…).