Reading A. N. Whitehead on Evolutionary Theory (dialogue with Tim Jackson)

[@MartinHomberger]

I liked the somewhat higher tension in this dialogue! So good. When Matt came in near the end with resonances and cycles, macro microcosm... Nice! I appreciate listening to these so much

[@davidmitchell0722]

About halfway through and just wanted to show some appreciation for the philosophical sparring, as it were. Great talk!

[@MB-ue2rf]

Driving at full speed and even building some of the roadway along the edges yourselves brings its own delightful detours and surprise vistas. But grounded so well in intellectual history as it is, it keeps this passenger buckling in for more. Fecund great stuff gentlemen.

[@GullyFoyleTerra]

Loving these dialogues. Reminds me a bit of the Sheldrake - McKenna - Abhrams trialogues.

[@henrywolf5332]

McKenna was influenced by whiteheads idealism.

[@billyyesreally]

Recently started reading Process and Reality for a project about Terence McKenna I'm working on. These discussion episodes on the channel have been really helpful.

[@garygoldberg9906]

And thank you for bringing this book by Whitehead forward... I have ordered a used copy of it, and am very interested in how it relates to CS Peirce's idea that the ultimate 'summum bonum' is 'the growth of concrete reasonableness' which he sees as a balancing of 'the sceptre of knowledge' and 'the globe of love'... Both are necessary in the process of the 'growth of concrete reasonableness'... which then becomes, for Peirce, a guiding light for ethical behavior...

[@Liliquan]

1:05:30 One mentioned outward the other inward expansion. In Chinese cosmology, this is the basic tendency of the cosmos. It expands outwards and then inwards infinitely. There is no beginning or end or any ultimate purpose or destination. It’s a monistic view whereby Qi contracts to form matter and expands to become immaterial. This happens on all scales from micro to macro and vice versa. But there is still a conception of time. Hence it isn’t circular but spiralling.

[@juliabenz1790]

When I hear 'environment' right away there is a move which places anything which is thought about already in a static dualism. So Matt's concresence and cycle and rhythm is where the action will be going forward...

[@ALavin-en1kr]

I would not want to be a highly evolved person and find myself living in a dark age. That would be a version of hell.

[@ALavin-en1kr]

A highly evolved person (consciously) living in this material age would be no joke either. 😊

[@ALavin-en1kr]

We make things to prototypes but the human does not have its own prototype? What an awful mistake of nature, how could it have turned out as well as it did for humans, evolving to a non-existing prototype. Amazing!

[@projectmalus]

nice at 1hr 42 where the niche and entering organism embrace in mutual recognition.

[@Edo9River]

I. Think that rocks. Having an 800 millions year head start over organic life stretches the category

[@bcde]

dr. segall any idea what happened to our old friend mathfails? is he ok?

[@Footnotes2Plato]

wish I knew!

[@projectmalus]

down home apple tree roots pulse twice a year with new feeder roots that are one cell wall thick to enable the embrace, that slough off over the winter to leave 10% as structural roots.

[@CandidDate]

Did we evolve to sit in front of computers and wonder why we evolved? What was the feedback that caused selective pressure to do so? Evolution is bunk.

[@philalethes216]

Kinda unrelated, but I wonder if you've looked into Buddhism and the overlap with Whiteheadian thought. Especially the more esoteric sects of Mahayana like Huayan, in which Indra's Net is a central concept: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huayan#Doctrine I feel like this is a really fruitful area of study. Curious what you make of it.

[@garygoldberg9906]

Might this be connected to the general idea of 'Biocentrism' that has been brought forward by Robert Lanza and Bob Berman? ... that it is the general model of 'Living Organism' that is of fundamental significance as opposed to the Newtonian model of 'Fabricated Mechanism'... what is the difference? It is massive and deeply significant and was the focus of the work of the brilliant theoretical biologist, Robert Rosen. Rosen, in his books, 'Life Itself' and 'Essays on Life Itself', shows that there are huge problems with the assumption of 'computability' and what he calls the Church-Pythagoras Thesis--which is the idea that 'effectiveness' is 'computable' and, presumably, 'algorithmic'. Quantum science tells us that this thesis is fundamentally wrong. This is fundamentally connected to the question of 'final causality'--the answer is not 'vitalism' but the reality of the organismic capacity to anticipate--to act in the present in the context of anticipation of future contingency.

[@Edo9River]

So I have follow es this dialogue _ exposition. 1. It’s q réal shame that Prof. Dan C Jordans work at integrating AN. Whitehead and the religious experience through the ANISA Project was halted by his murder. But all of his papers are now in the Stanford University. Library’s. However I don’t know how much is digitalized. . 2. A lot of what you’re talking about is very compatible with the mystical books I have read.. wouldn’t you agree that this dialogue, between you and Whitehead, could be describing differentiation in the physical plane as a response to the integration or appearance of unity in the spiritual world? I think we’re so used to thinking of the physical world as the driver, as the initiator. But the world religions mystical books are all in agreement, on the physical being a reply, to the spiritual question/ initiation. . You can just shrug your shoulders and claim AN didn’t give his specific approval of , for example, the Egyptian Book of the dead. Cause you know that s just a dodge. So, if you agree with me, the problem is only as I see it a matter of “code speak”. If I speak in the aAN Whitehead code, you will acknowledge me and let. Me inside the tribe. But until I pass this initiation test, I’m outside, as well as others. You don’t realize how much this video is about being gate-keepers. 😢

[@CandidDate]

A tautology doesn't explain anything. These atoms in my liver survive because I survive. Do the atoms want me to live in any way?

[@TheGloriusContent]

Apperently so. There is no atom in the universe that could have stopped you from writing that comment.

[@nerian777]

Moderns are impossibly confused about everything

[@CandidDate]

This is sure a lot of hand waving. I think therefore I think.

[@TheGloriusContent]

If I did not think, I could still perhaps be. God said "I am that I am." Since this is not true for humans, I certainly don't take "I think therefor I am." seriously. It doesn't appear like the proposition is even opposed to sollipsism.