"To understand the history of the cosmos as if it only had an outside—as if there was no inside—is not just leaving out half the picture. It’s distorting the whole picture. Because the inside is where the knowing happens, where agency happens, where decisions occur, where value is harvested and enjoyed."
I think this really helps illustrate the relationship between consciousness and time. The "inside" is the present moment, where we perceive the past, predict the future, and make our decisions that create time. It's the point of becoming, and it's becoming that drives time and creativity, and can be directed by consciousness (what is consciousness for if not directing our becoming?). It's once things are past and the decisions have been made that they become "objective". And so any cosmology that treats past and future indifferently has no space for mentality or the "inside" as you call it.
Agreed! I would love to see a Nishitani scholar (like Daniel Zaruba) brought into these attempts at viewpoint synthesis. Experiencing nirhoda (ceasation events) and paying close attention to how consciousness “comes back online” from the “emptiness” or “no-thing-ness” gives a direct appreciation for stuff that you articulate better than I could ever hope to. But I reckon get some Zen/Chan crew onboard might prove fruitful.
Once again I am aligned with your articulation of the value of challenging the classic separation of mind and matter:
"I think we need to bring these two perspectives together. There is a sense in which what we perceive is what we expect to perceive, but there is also a sense in which what we perceive is what has already occurred in the environment around us".
I hear in this the context that what is occurring in the environment around our bodies, such as apples, flowers, other bodies, might be thought of as emitters of qualities (roundness, redness, sweetness, odours etc) that are already occurring (and "expecting" to be received), and our bodies contain the perceptive apparatus to act as receivers.
Whilst all this seems to occur in "spacetime" (hence the time delay), I can't help seeing a parallel with what Ruth Kastner et al consider as the fundamental transactions in "quantum land" with "offer waves" and "confirmation waves".
I also consider that this articulation aligns with Manzotti's theory of the "spread mind" which also collapses the subject-object duality. The qualities of redness, roundness, sweetness exist in the apple, not in our brain. And the location then of "mind" is not in the brain, but perhaps in the polarity "held taut across what can appear to us like an interdimensional rift".
Yep. "Biology is the study of the larger organisms; whereas physics is the study of the smaller organisms ." So nice to bring these two together. Kastner's work, to the degree that I can grok it, seems extraordinarily Whiteheadian.
In mentioning "interface" you seemingly foreshadow your follow-up discussion with RK, which I am just finishing, during which Donald Hoffman and his "Interface Theory" arose. His work seems a bit metaphysically flighty but nevertheless provocative. This less model-abstract approach you are teasing out, of a dynamic interface in the roiling dipolarity of reality, seems more productive.
Understanding our role - as perceivers or knowers or observers seems to be central to any sort of radical empiricism. Steven Wolfram's and Jonathan Gorard's hypergraphs work at a level 9 orders of magnitude below that of fundamental particles; and he is loath to impute any teleology or feeling to the lines and nodes of his graphs; and he does not discuss possibility. But. His work on observer theory, developed within a vastly and fundamentally relational cosmological model is still, for me, quite... provocative. (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/)...
And then you mention synchronicity! For me a bit of a synchronicity itself since I only just finished listening to Levin's more recent talk on the platonic realms in which he posits that these more metaphysical considerations deriving from his work cannot be really testable - but that, in his view, if there were something that might indicate the existence of these orthagonal-to-reality realms they would be indicated by the appearance of "synchronicities". Indeed.
As to precognition, I have to fall back on Galileo's quiet reminder "e pur si muove". It is real. It quietly awaits explanation and meanwhile rattles the supports of our current understanding of the Whiteheadian cosmos.
And yes. Beauty for the curtain call.
I think Whitehead does a pretty good job of establishing the fundamentally aesthetic nature of the cosmos in a grounded and coherent way. I like that you closed with that but if felt a bit un-connected to the prior musings. (Perhaps the actual talk had some linking language.) Even when you re-articulate some fundamental element of the metaphysics for the nth time I hear new bits in new ways; this particular one - "beauty" as fundamental - always bears more fleshing out.
Thanks for the thoughts, very helpful. On precognition, I think Whitehead allows for a form of it so long as we are still able to say that it is only cognition of a generic possibility about probable futures rather than cognition of an already actualized future.
Yes. And as an avid Whiteheadian that's why I keep bringing it, precognition, up!
Since the examples abound of cognitions which are of much more than "generic possibility" this particular element of experience is a direct challenge to the metaphysics as generally understood. Thus some subtle but radical re-interpretation of time needs undertaking if the "creative advance" is to be harmonized with precognition. Perhaps a diversity of asynchronous "times" or an imaginary/complex dimension of time will crack this contrast.
"To understand the history of the cosmos as if it only had an outside—as if there was no inside—is not just leaving out half the picture. It’s distorting the whole picture. Because the inside is where the knowing happens, where agency happens, where decisions occur, where value is harvested and enjoyed."
I think this really helps illustrate the relationship between consciousness and time. The "inside" is the present moment, where we perceive the past, predict the future, and make our decisions that create time. It's the point of becoming, and it's becoming that drives time and creativity, and can be directed by consciousness (what is consciousness for if not directing our becoming?). It's once things are past and the decisions have been made that they become "objective". And so any cosmology that treats past and future indifferently has no space for mentality or the "inside" as you call it.
Exactly!
Ps. Can’t wait for the convo with Franken.... oops! I mean Levin. 😜
Agreed! I would love to see a Nishitani scholar (like Daniel Zaruba) brought into these attempts at viewpoint synthesis. Experiencing nirhoda (ceasation events) and paying close attention to how consciousness “comes back online” from the “emptiness” or “no-thing-ness” gives a direct appreciation for stuff that you articulate better than I could ever hope to. But I reckon get some Zen/Chan crew onboard might prove fruitful.
Once again I am aligned with your articulation of the value of challenging the classic separation of mind and matter:
"I think we need to bring these two perspectives together. There is a sense in which what we perceive is what we expect to perceive, but there is also a sense in which what we perceive is what has already occurred in the environment around us".
I hear in this the context that what is occurring in the environment around our bodies, such as apples, flowers, other bodies, might be thought of as emitters of qualities (roundness, redness, sweetness, odours etc) that are already occurring (and "expecting" to be received), and our bodies contain the perceptive apparatus to act as receivers.
Whilst all this seems to occur in "spacetime" (hence the time delay), I can't help seeing a parallel with what Ruth Kastner et al consider as the fundamental transactions in "quantum land" with "offer waves" and "confirmation waves".
I also consider that this articulation aligns with Manzotti's theory of the "spread mind" which also collapses the subject-object duality. The qualities of redness, roundness, sweetness exist in the apple, not in our brain. And the location then of "mind" is not in the brain, but perhaps in the polarity "held taut across what can appear to us like an interdimensional rift".
Beautiful thoughts, Gary! I especially appreciate the connection to Manzotti.
I think you know me well enough now to know that I will continue to pull on that thread! I'm discussing this with Ruth K as well.
Yep. "Biology is the study of the larger organisms; whereas physics is the study of the smaller organisms ." So nice to bring these two together. Kastner's work, to the degree that I can grok it, seems extraordinarily Whiteheadian.
In mentioning "interface" you seemingly foreshadow your follow-up discussion with RK, which I am just finishing, during which Donald Hoffman and his "Interface Theory" arose. His work seems a bit metaphysically flighty but nevertheless provocative. This less model-abstract approach you are teasing out, of a dynamic interface in the roiling dipolarity of reality, seems more productive.
Understanding our role - as perceivers or knowers or observers seems to be central to any sort of radical empiricism. Steven Wolfram's and Jonathan Gorard's hypergraphs work at a level 9 orders of magnitude below that of fundamental particles; and he is loath to impute any teleology or feeling to the lines and nodes of his graphs; and he does not discuss possibility. But. His work on observer theory, developed within a vastly and fundamentally relational cosmological model is still, for me, quite... provocative. (https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2023/12/observer-theory/)...
And then you mention synchronicity! For me a bit of a synchronicity itself since I only just finished listening to Levin's more recent talk on the platonic realms in which he posits that these more metaphysical considerations deriving from his work cannot be really testable - but that, in his view, if there were something that might indicate the existence of these orthagonal-to-reality realms they would be indicated by the appearance of "synchronicities". Indeed.
As to precognition, I have to fall back on Galileo's quiet reminder "e pur si muove". It is real. It quietly awaits explanation and meanwhile rattles the supports of our current understanding of the Whiteheadian cosmos.
And yes. Beauty for the curtain call.
I think Whitehead does a pretty good job of establishing the fundamentally aesthetic nature of the cosmos in a grounded and coherent way. I like that you closed with that but if felt a bit un-connected to the prior musings. (Perhaps the actual talk had some linking language.) Even when you re-articulate some fundamental element of the metaphysics for the nth time I hear new bits in new ways; this particular one - "beauty" as fundamental - always bears more fleshing out.
Thanks for the thoughts, very helpful. On precognition, I think Whitehead allows for a form of it so long as we are still able to say that it is only cognition of a generic possibility about probable futures rather than cognition of an already actualized future.
Yes. And as an avid Whiteheadian that's why I keep bringing it, precognition, up!
Since the examples abound of cognitions which are of much more than "generic possibility" this particular element of experience is a direct challenge to the metaphysics as generally understood. Thus some subtle but radical re-interpretation of time needs undertaking if the "creative advance" is to be harmonized with precognition. Perhaps a diversity of asynchronous "times" or an imaginary/complex dimension of time will crack this contrast.