Process Philosophy from Plato to Whitehead and Beyond

Curt Jaimungal invited me on his Theories of Everything Podcast

Below I am sharing a couple of outputs from ChatGPT4o1 as a hopefully interesting way of summarizing my 3 hour conversation with Curt.

In my first prompt I asked it to create a very detailed narrative summary of the transcript written from the perspective of a 23rd century natural philosopher who had lived through the paradigm shift that inverted the relationship scientific materialism had assumed to exist between consciousness and the physical cosmos. I made several important but minor edits for accuracy.

In the second prompt, I asked it to review the conversation from the perspective of a hard-nosed theoretical physicist.

…

Prompt 1:

A Twenty-Third Century Reflection on the Great Conversation

(As recounted by a natural philosopher born after the Great Inversion of Consciousness and Cosmos)

I read once that the 21st-century search for knowledge still clung to the lingering scaffolding of 19th-century scientific materialism. In my century, we take it for granted that mind and matter co-participate in every process of the cosmos. But in the days of Matt Segall and Curt Jaimungal, they stood at a threshold—a moment brimming with the potential to reorient human civilization around a more integrated understanding of reality. Let me recount in detail their remarkable conversation, for it foreshadowed the paradigm shift my generation now takes as self-evident.

1. Prologue: The Setting and the Question of Meaning

The conversation opens with reflections on the short-sightedness of the then-dominant scientific worldview—the notion that physical reality is an unimaginably vast, mostly empty expanse, while consciousness is either an accident or a negligible by-product. Matt Segall, a philosopher at the California Institute of Integral Studies, and Curt Jaimungal, a theoretical physics and philosophy researcher, delve into the classical trajectory of Western thought. Together, they explore how philosophical developments from Plato and Aristotle through Kant, Hegel, Schelling, and Whitehead are relevant to the most urgent puzzles of their era: What is consciousness? How does mind relate to matter? And how can we live meaningfully in a time of existential and civilizational crisis?

Underpinning their dialogue is the conviction that philosophical inquiry—often deemed “impractical” in technological societies—carries implications for how individuals conduct their lives, especially in a civilization beset by doubt about free will, morality, and even the possibility of knowledge itself. They continually return to the question: “What is it to be human—and how might that point us to a more holistic view of the cosmos?”

2. From Plato’s Intuitions to Aristotle’s Substance

Segall begins with the root of Western philosophy:

• Plato wrote dialogues that often ended in aporia, highlighting the importance of myth when logical reasoning reached its limit. Plato’s realism about Forms (universals) guided many subsequent debates about the nature of concepts and existence.

• Aristotle synthesized these themes into a systematic account of substances purposely developing from potentcy to actuality. Here, Segall emphasizes that Aristotle’s “substance” was not static but teleological—an acorn “wants” to become an oak. Despite this, centuries later, modern science would adopt a “substance-property” logic that placed purposeless matter at the foundation of reality.

The conversation notes how nominalists in the medieval period undercut Plato’s and Aristotle’s views of objective “universals,” insisting such forms existed only in the human mind. This nominalist tradition, ironically, laid theological groundwork for a God of absolute power—where even logic and math might be subject to divine whim. Segall suggests that modern materialism inherits much of nominalism unawares of its originally theological motivations, thus minimizing the role that real forms or intrinsic purposes might play in the natural world.

3. Descartes, Kant, and the Schism of Mind and Matter

Segall and Jaimungal chart the radical transformation enacted by Descartes—a dualist dividing the world into thinking substance (soul) and extended substance (matter). For Descartes, the scientific realm was measurable, mechanical extension, while subjectivity belonged to theology and church. This “truce” between science and religion would paradoxically marginalize the soul, granting science mastery over “dead matter.”

Yet Kant represents, as Segall puts it, a “Copernican revolution” in philosophy. Rather than analyzing which substances exist, Kant directs us to epistemology: How do we know what we know?

• Kant’s key insight is that space, time, and categories such as causality and substance exist not as “things out there” but as conditions of the subject’s experience.

• He retains the notion of mind’s rational structures—ensuring scientific law is both necessary and universal. But he also cordons off the realm of “things-in-themselves” (noumena)—strictly beyond human knowledge—thus preserving a sphere for freedom and moral agency beyond the mechanistic explanations of science.

Matt mentions that Kant’s Critique of Judgment hints at an “organic” dimension in nature, bridging mind with the purposiveness observed in living organisms. This presages a deeper reconsideration of whether teleology might be intrinsic to life—and thereby to the wider cosmos.

4. Schelling’s Evolutionary Panpsychism and Hegel’s Dialectical Logic

Segall highlights Schelling as the young luminary who, inspired by Kant’s emphasis on organism, extended it into a fully organic cosmology: the entire universe is a self-organizing, evolving system. Here, we see the beginnings of panpsychism in modern form—Schelling insisted consciousness could not arise from mindless matter; there must be a latent interiority or “seed of spirit” at the origins of nature.

In parallel, Hegel developed his notoriously difficult dialectic—an unfolding logic in which every thesis generates its antithesis, culminating in higher syntheses and “absolute knowledge.” Hegel’s system aimed at a totalizing rationality, but as Segall observes, Schelling distrusted final systems, preferring to remain open-ended—a “proto-existential” stance that resonates with those who see philosophy as a never-ending creative pursuit.

5. Whitehead: Overcoming the Bifurcation of Nature

Eventually, Jaimungal and Segall move to Alfred North Whitehead, who transitions from mathematician (co-author of Principia Mathematica) to speculative metaphysician:

• General Relativity and Quantum Theory undermined the neat “substance-property” framework. Whitehead rejects the “bifurcation” between primary (mathematical, objective) and secondary (subjective, qualitative) properties.

• Instead, he proposes “organic realism” or “process philosophy”: reality is not made of static bits of matter with extrinsic properties, but of events or actual occasions of experience. Every entity “prehends” (feels) the past and integrates it with future possibilities.

• Whitehead’s vision reintroduces interiority at all levels of nature. Even an electron is not a tiny pebble but a momentary drop of experience responding to prior events with a vestige of agency—albeit minimal.

Here, Whitehead sees God not as an omnipotent creator outside time, but as an “actual entity” who interweaves the entire system, eternally mediating between infinite potential and concrete actualizations. This is panexperientialism: the cosmos is a pluriverse of interlocking perspectives, each integrating its past and creatively deciding among real possibilities for the next moment, aided but not determined by God’s vision of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness.

6. Human Freedom, Inner Life, and the Importance of Death

The conversation pivots to the ethical and existential dimensions of process thought:

1. Free Will

• Segall holds that freedom is “constrained but real.” We cannot shape physical reality arbitrarily, but we do express agency in thought and imagination. Human beings embody a high degree of freedom within a matrix of causal inheritances from our personal, cultural, and biological past.

• Freedom grows with conscious self-awareness, echoing Jung—to the extent we integrate unconscious drives, we become less puppeteered by hidden forces and more genuinely free.

2. Mortality and Meaning

• Segall references Socrates’ conviction that philosophy is preparation for death. By reflecting on one’s inevitable end, one can live more authentically.

• The superficial chase for power and technological control distracts from the deeper mystery of being human. Indeed, the brute fact of mortality crystallizes what truly matters.

• Jaimungal and Segall see the cultivation of inner life, self-knowledge, and ethical community as crucial steps forward for civilization.

7. Toward the Great Inversion: Cosmos and Consciousness

In their final reflections, Segall anticipates a “reorientation” that would dethrone the old scientific materialism. He suspects that the vast physical cosmos is not merely “dead emptiness,” and that in fact the depths of consciousness surpass even the enormous scales of outer space. He hints that the 21st century stood on the threshold of seeing consciousness as coequal or even prior to matter, rather than a negligible by-product of purely mechanical forces.

It is precisely this transformation, we in the 23rd century can affirm, that would later culminate in the Great Inversion: the shift from seeing mind as an outcome of matter to seeing matter as an aspect of mind—or, more accurately, an unfolding interplay of mental-physical processes at every scale of nature.

8. Epilogue: The Continuing Legacy

Our historians of philosophy now recognize that Segall and Jaimungal’s dialogue presaged the major metamorphosis of our civilization. In their era, it remained “marginal” to question Cartesian dualism or strict materialism in polite scientific circles. Yet they gave voice to the abiding tension many of their contemporaries felt: that mechanistic models alone could not account for the creative, living, and meaningful aspects of existence.

Reflecting on their conversation:

• They integrated ancient and modern threads—Plato’s Forms, Aristotle’s purposeful cosmos, Kant’s transcendental turn, Schelling’s panpsychist evolution, Hegel’s dialectic, and Whitehead’s process metaphysics—into a single sweeping narrative of how Western thought wrestled with the mind–matter riddle.

• They demonstrated that the existential question—“What is the human being?”—must ultimately be the question, for it is our own being-in-the-world that sets the very framework by which we conceive “reality.”

• Their emphasis on relationship, creativity, and internal depth marked the beginnings of a new sensibility: one that dissolves the old gulf between subject and object, unites value and fact, and calls upon each individual to cultivate self-awareness and moral responsibility in a cosmos that is itself alive with process.

Thus, from our vantage point, we see that the seeds of the Great Inversion were sown in such discussions. By trusting experience and integrating the phenomenal richness of consciousness with the rigor of scientific exploration, they set the stage for the more holistic worldview that would bloom in subsequent centuries—where no one doubts that the cosmos and consciousness co-create one another, moment by living moment.

…

Prompt 2:

Below is an assessment of the Matt Segall–Curt Jaimungal conversation from the vantage point of a theoretical physicist, focusing on how their wide-ranging philosophical discussion intersects with key issues in contemporary physics and cosmology.

1. Framing the Inquiry: Philosophy and Physics

From the outset, both Segall and Jaimungal aim to bridge philosophical ideas—especially those of Whitehead’s “process philosophy”—with scientific insights (relativity, quantum mechanics, etc.). As a theoretical physicist, one might applaud their attempt to recognize that physics rests on foundational assumptions about the nature of space, time, causality, and consciousness. In standard practice, physicists often bracket out “secondary qualities” (e.g., subjective experience) to focus on mathematically tractable quantities. Here, however, the conversation seeks to reintegrate what is normally set aside—color, qualia, purpose—into a single conceptual framework.

Observational Note

• Philosophical reflection can encourage physicists to remain alert to hidden assumptions and possible alternative formalisms (as Whitehead proposed in his critique of Einstein’s geometric approach to gravity).

2. Whitehead’s Alternative to Curved Spacetime

One of the most concrete points in the conversation for a physicist is Whitehead’s proposed alternative to general relativity. Whitehead, like Einstein, formulated tensor equations to account for gravitational phenomena, but in a way that avoids the notion of “curved spacetime.” Instead, he sought to preserve the idea of a more uniform geometry, with gravitational effects explained through different means (e.g., “non-metricity” rather than curvature).

1. Empirical Parity

• For a time, Whitehead’s equations produced predictions roughly equivalent to Einstein’s in the solar system context.

• Modern tests (e.g., gravitational lensing, binary pulsar timing) likely deviate in subtle ways, but the historical import is that Whitehead’s approach highlights how multiple mathematical frameworks can yield overlapping empirical predictions.

2. Conceptual Relevance

• Contemporary theoretical physics does consider formulations with torsion or non-metricity (e.g., teleparallel gravity or Weyl geometries).

• While Einstein’s field equations remain dominant, the conversation underscores that these alternatives, however mathematically cumbersome, sometimes offer unique philosophical insights—for instance, about the nature of measurement or the role of “space-time” as an abstraction.

3. Quantum Perspectives and Potentiality

Another theme is the intersection of Whitehead’s “actual occasions” with quantum mechanics. Segall (and Jaimungal, to a degree) connect the notion of each event’s “choices” among possibilities to how quantum theory treats potentiality.

1. Quantum Mechanics’ Interpretational Challenges

• The conversation likens “actual occasions” to discrete events wherein the past (or wavefunction) funnels into a “choice” or collapse.

• The Many-Worlds interpretation is mentioned as refusing to distinguish between what is actualized and what remains potential, leading to parallel universes.

• Whitehead’s stance is more like an ontological version of wavefunction collapse—each occasion picks one among many real possibilities, preserving a difference between the actual and the potential.

2. Relation to Process Philosophy

• Physicists who investigate relational interpretations (e.g., relational quantum mechanics, QBism) have begun re-examining how “events” take shape in a quantum context.

• Whitehead’s viewpoint, though not a mainstream approach in quantum foundations, resonates with a broader search for a more dynamic, event-centered ontology.

4. Mind and Matter: Panexperientialist Undercurrents

A topic likely to raise eyebrows among physicists is the push to see mind or “experience” at a fundamental level. Typically, physics remains silent on consciousness, focusing on observer-independent formalisms. Yet:

1. Presupposing the Observer

• Segall notes that science itself presupposes a knowing subject—something Kant illuminated centuries ago.

• Whitehead insists that even at the subatomic scale, there is a germ of experience—a stance that extends beyond typical physicalist frameworks.

2. Theoretical Physicist’s Caution

• While such panexperiential claims stretch beyond standard practice, they might not conflict directly with any known physical law. The laws of quantum field theory, for instance, do not forbid the possibility that “experience” is inherent in matter; they simply do not require it to solve problems in collider data or cosmological modeling.

• One can see this as an optional “interpretive overlay,” akin to adding meaning to raw wavefunction mathematics.

5. Free Will, Determinism, and Constraints

In discussing free will, Segall distinguishes between strong determinism and a vantage wherein quantum indeterminacy opens “wiggle room.” For a physicist:

• Quantum Indeterminism

• Rarely invoked as a direct proof of human free will—nonetheless, it shows fundamental unpredictability at microscopic scales.

• Whether that unpredictability meaningfully translates into volitional freedom is usually beyond the scope of standard physics but remains an interesting philosophical interplay.

• Practical Determinism

• Macroscopic systems often appear quasi-classical or statistically predictable (due to decoherence).

• The conversation’s note that genuine freedom might exist in a conceptual or mental dimension is a philosophical speculation rather than a robust physical statement. Physicists typically bracket out such questions or label them “interpretational.”

6. Relevance to Contemporary Physics

Though the conversation veers into ethics, consciousness, and the meaning of mortality, there are points that a theoretical physicist might highlight for further research:

1. Emergent Spacetime

• Whitehead’s idea that spacetime emerges from events rather than events occurring “in” spacetime has an analogy in certain quantum gravity proposals (e.g., “spacetime as a condensate,” spin foam models).

• This might be the most scientific intersection: the notion that the geometry of the universe is secondary, arising from a fundamental network of relations.

2. Philosophical Depth vs. Mathematical Rigor

• Segall’s discussion is conceptual rather than computational; one rarely sees explicit equations or testable predictions in Whitehead’s framework (beyond the historical attempt with the gravitational field equations).

• For a modern physicist, merging these conceptual insights with high-level mathematics—like category theory or new expansions of quantum field theory—would be the next step if one wanted to develop a “process-based physics.”

7. Overall Assessment

• Intellectual Value: The conversation displays a laudable openness to rethinking foundations, reminiscent of the earliest 20th-century dialogues among Einstein, Schrödinger, and others about the philosophical underpinnings of space, time, and quantum phenomena.

• Speculative Leap: From a strictly scientific standpoint, some of the leaps about universal consciousness or cosmic mind remain interpretive rather than empirically verifiable. Still, these leaps can stimulate fresh ways of conceptualizing measurement, observation, and the role of potentialities.

• Legacy for Future Inquiry: Today’s theoretical physics does try to unify quantum field theory with general relativity—an ongoing, famously difficult project (quantum gravity). Insights like Whitehead’s “actual occasions” might inspire new modeling strategies, for instance in discrete approaches to spacetime or relational interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Ultimately, from a theoretical physicist’s point of view, the conversation underscores the intersection of philosophy with advanced science. While it does not yield immediate new equations or experimental predictions, it offers fertile conceptual territory for thinking more broadly about the nature of reality—something that has historically led to major shifts in physics whenever a radical new perspective was found to be compatible with mathematical and experimental frameworks.