Zoom AI's summary of my meeting with Tim Jackson with timestamps: 0:00 Conference, Neuroscientist, Free Energy Principle, Perception, Instrumentalist Mode Timothy and Matt discussed the upcoming conference and the replacement of Evan Thompson, a neuroscientist named Michael Jacob from the University of California, San Francisco, who studies the connection between metabolism and mental health. They also engaged in a deep conversation about the free energy principle and the concept of perception being akin to hallucination. Timothy expressed his interest in this research program and his resistance to the anti-realist view it often leads to. The discussion also touched upon the difficulties of maintaining an instrumentalist mode when asked big questions about the universe. The potential of the free energy principle to unify different regimes was also discussed. 12:48 Evolutionary Theory and Organismic Agency The meeting focused on the evolutionary theory and its implications on organisms. Matt and Timothy discussed the limitations of natural selection as the sole explanation for evolution, emphasizing the role of individual organisms and their agency in evolution. They explored the concept of organismic selection, suggesting that organisms have the ability to try out behaviors that could be heritable, whether epigenetically or behaviorally. They also highlighted the importance of memory, anticipation, and animal culture in evolution. 19:48 Evolution Beyond Biology: Philosophical Implications Timothy and Matt discussed the concept of evolution, emphasizing its application beyond biology. They explored the philosophical and metaphysical implications of evolution, including the role of determinism and the concept of emergent goals. They also touched upon the role of noise in evolution, which they suggested could not be eliminated and might even contribute to novelty. The conversation further addressed the concept of convergence in evolution, suggesting that certain physical invariants in the environment could lead to the evolution of similar traits in unrelated organisms. They concluded by noting that while there might be contingency in evolution, there are also reasons why certain outcomes arrive. 30:50 Scientific Instrumentalism: Control, Prediction, and Philosophy The discussion revolved around the nature of scientific instrumentalism and its role in understanding and predicting systems. The participants debated whether science was primarily an instrumental enterprise, with the primary aim of control and prediction. They also touched upon the potential circularity in this approach, with the model being instrumental itself and proposing that the brain is also in the business of prediction and control. The conversation also explored the potential for instrumentalism to undermine science as an explanatory enterprise. However, it was noted that instrumentalism could also be part of a larger philosophical framework, such as pragmatism, and could be used to understand evolutionary reasoning. The discussion concluded with the idea that instrumentalism should not be confused with metaphysics, but could be a method of approaching reality. 39:14 Aesthetics and Evolution: Exploring Beauty's Role Timothy and Matt discussed the role of aesthetic experience and beauty in human life and the natural world. They considered the possibility of evolutionary explanations for the development of organisms with a refined aesthetic sense. Timothy emphasized that beauty is a fundamental part of a fulfilling life and is not merely an illusion or capable of being "explained away". They also explored the idea of symmetry being inherently beautiful and how it could be a fundamental property of the universe. The conversation touched on the limitations of reductionist evolutionary psychology and the potential of beauty to be a source of satisfaction. 49:56 Emergence, Thermodynamics, and Evolutionary Theory The meeting primarily revolved around a discussion on the nature of complexity and emergence, using the framework of thermodynamics and evolutionary theory. The conversation explored the concept of "Eros" as a force driving emergent order, and the need for a source of aim or agency to explain this trend. The idea of "concrescence" was introduced as an organic mode of explanation, suggesting a synthesis between what's already been actualized and what's possible. The discussion also highlighted the importance of continuity in an evolutionary account and the role of selection at various levels. 55:31 Metaphysics and Reality Principles Debate Timothy and Matt discussed the concept of metaphysics and the principles that underlie reality. They debated the idea of a characterless, most generic principle, such as continuity, as a foundation for understanding the diversity of reality. They also discussed the concept of prehension and concrescence as part of their framework. The conversation touched on the use of terms like "feeling" and "experience" in Whitehead's philosophy, expressing concerns about the baggage these words carry. The idea of an inherent topology in a primordial vibratory flux was also explored. The potential role of a primordial entity establishing rules of extensive connection was discussed, with Whitehead's thoughts on the matter being a significant reference point. 1:08:10 Chance, Emergent Goals, and Finalism Timothy also touched upon the idea that even though the universe may be founded on chance or contingency, it can still be full of non-chance elements such as emergent goals or finalism. The conversation also explored the concept of determinism and the possibility of starting from the arbitrary and building a picture of finalism. Timothy clarified that he doesn't view those who reduce everything to chance as the enemy. Matt ended with the idea that everything that follows after the original accident must conform to the structure of constrained possibility that it has established. 1:12:38 Language, Translation, Science, Religion, and Metaphysics The participants discussed the importance of language and translation in science and religion. Matt emphasized the need to bracket emotions to focus on truth, while acknowledging the role of metaphysics in other domains. He also suggested the need to retranslate from a more scientific, metaphysical, ontological discussion into theological content. The discussion also highlighted the potential danger of religious belief and the importance of a harmonious resonance between science and religion. The next steps outlined included diving deeper into Whitehead's propositional theory and framing the broader project.
The question, whether decision-making needs to go all the way down as a metaphysical, or logical consequence or not, misses the point that we need it on pure physical grounds to be at the lowest level if we want to understand quantum mechanics. THIS is the beauty of Whitehead's framework in my view: That it can actually turn quantum mechanics from "shut up and calculate" to "just like you and me". The collapse of the electron-wave-function-field into actual located electrons are actual occasions, just as the spark of realization "oh! I AM! (therefore?) I think!"
My ongoing try at understanding a dc circuit is that charge flows thru a conductor when the particles (copper being good at this) align their magnetic moments. The load pulls this charge in one direction as current. The voltage is a circular gate that allows a separation from the voltage in the world, and makes the circuit possible. The battery supplies the voltage difference. I'm not sure if this can be translated to quark spin and the Higgs Bosun field creating a tubular time with a shell of hydrogen, that fragments into elements. If creativity is 2^9 coming from the center, where the allowing and asserting are balanced as sweet spot, where the failed attempt at tube (going to disc) has this surplus, it kind of makes sense. Symbiosis as object building from fragments, breaking of symbiosis opening the path in the exponents.
if humans evolve their perception of themselves to facets that are different experiences of one human object, this one human object can now be placed in the world justice system, the dodecahedron or 2^5 interaction possibility sets. The intelligence machine that is the world object might be considered as a series, 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^5 etc. As a new born, the facet laying on their side develops what Vervaeke might call religio relatio, comfort as a connection between massive forces of gravity and light, one set of allowing and asserting balanced, 2^1. Held upright, 2^2 as trade and family language join the sacred language, the triangulation of face, horizon, objects assuaging the wants and needs apart from the sacred balanced in the 2^1. Development of self as coherent wave that moves and embraces a wave in two areas, the human and non-human. Each embrace something like a second of attention span, where repetition diminishes so the person is objectified in one perceptual language rather than a balance, otherwise a balance leading to 2^3, again the three languages in the exponent, and 8 seconds of perception attention span. Coming from the different direction to see the 2^7, the galaxy with one black hole and one sun split into many suns in their pie slices of different ages, same as human. A shell (the one sun) breaks apart and the parts try to form a tube but settle for disc, which has a sweet spot. In this sweet spot a shell forms, the intelligence machine as this. Example, Sun has solar system disc which has a sweet spot as Earth which has life as a shell, this shell has many GI tracts and plants as tubes that form a disc (or fails as a vortex). The 2^5 is the sweet spot there, a true justice system for the world, which might lead to a new shell as 2^7, where the galaxy disc is the sweet spot to move to 2^11 outside the universe via light thru black holes perhaps, universe as object with others in an ocean of dark matter. Thanks for the show.
I venture that what's established about the 1:06:00 mark is that, with the best will in the world, Tim just doesn't know anywhere near as much about Whitehead's thinking as Matt does. Being an evidently bright bloke, Tim has formed notions and prejudices on the strength of ANW's greatest hits and has very interesting things to say about these apprehensions, which I'm much enjoying. I'm also thinking it's very sweet how tactful Matt is in pointing out that, actually, because ANW was also evidently bright, he got there first - and most of Tim's apprehensions are misguided.
Haha - in Australia we say (affectionately) “thank you, captain obvious” - it’s abundantly clear I don’t know remotely as much about Whitehead as Matt (and that Matt is always tactful and gracious in his responses). However I don’t think the implication that all of my apprehensions about Whitehead’s work are the result of my ignorance is likely to be correct - some certainly are, but some are not. I have deep respect for Whitehead as a philosopher though, hopefully that’s clear.
Don't get me wrong - the conversation is going BEAUTIFULLY, and you know 100X more about ANW than I do (and clearly think sympathetically with him), and 1,000X more about all the adjacent stuff. As a dabbler, I'm finding it wonderfully instructive listening to the two of you - and I'm looking forward to more. I was just struck by the elegance of Matt's comment, "There could be this basic Ur form, which is just the rule by which a burgeoning cosmos can establish when something's overlapping with something else - it's not even geometry yet, it's before space and time as measurable forms of extension; but again Whitehead's not sure he's discovered what any of these are", as a rejoinder to your hesitations about a what is is that "goes all the way down and "can be as characterless as possible", but which you don't accept as "God". Sharing those hesitations and having the same reaction, I found Matt's sketch of how ANW (perhaps) anticipated and moved beyond the hestations nicely done.
@@tobymnewton thanks for your engagement and I’m really glad you’re enjoying the chats. I think this is something Matt and I will be returning to again and again in our conversations, and indeed something we’ve been talking about for years already. I have this concern with leanness or minimalism in metaphysics, and that’s indeed something I’m probing Whitehead on. Matt’s response was elegant indeed. We’ll also revisit this territory when we start discussing Wolfram in more detail (which is probably after we get a decent draft of our article on Whitehead’s theory of perception in relation to the FEP together). Thanks again mate!
Sorry, one more comment: As a scientist (physicist) I think science is more about understanding than "truth". I understand the scientific method as: we emagine a stary about the world, that shall help us understand the world, in the sence, that we can anticipate future events. But truth lies with the events themselves, not in our story about them. To say science is about truth sounds to me as if asserting the status of reality to our scientific theories... And isn't that, what Whitehead calked: "missplaced concreteness" or something like that. To misstake our abstractins as real?? Sorry, maybe you could help me to understand this better, by clarifying what you ment by "science is about truth.", Matt? That would be extremely apretiated. Also: Whiche of your 3 chatbots should i talk to to get the fullest experience?
Ah, i just re-watched that part. You (matt) said science brackets beauty and emotion to focus ob truth. I think now, i understand and agree, or mostly agree. As you yourselfe said: the beauty of the matematical formalism is one of the guiding-rails for finding truth... But yea: the goal is truthfully describing reality (if possible in a beautyfull way)😄 ? Correct??
Zoom AI's summary of my meeting with Tim Jackson with timestamps:
0:00 Conference, Neuroscientist, Free Energy Principle, Perception, Instrumentalist Mode
Timothy and Matt discussed the upcoming conference and the replacement of Evan Thompson, a neuroscientist named Michael Jacob from the University of California, San Francisco, who studies the connection between metabolism and mental health. They also engaged in a deep conversation about the free energy principle and the concept of perception being akin to hallucination. Timothy expressed his interest in this research program and his resistance to the anti-realist view it often leads to. The discussion also touched upon the difficulties of maintaining an instrumentalist mode when asked big questions about the universe. The potential of the free energy principle to unify different regimes was also discussed.
12:48 Evolutionary Theory and Organismic Agency
The meeting focused on the evolutionary theory and its implications on organisms. Matt and Timothy discussed the limitations of natural selection as the sole explanation for evolution, emphasizing the role of individual organisms and their agency in evolution. They explored the concept of organismic selection, suggesting that organisms have the ability to try out behaviors that could be heritable, whether epigenetically or behaviorally. They also highlighted the importance of memory, anticipation, and animal culture in evolution.
19:48 Evolution Beyond Biology: Philosophical Implications
Timothy and Matt discussed the concept of evolution, emphasizing its application beyond biology. They explored the philosophical and metaphysical implications of evolution, including the role of determinism and the concept of emergent goals. They also touched upon the role of noise in evolution, which they suggested could not be eliminated and might even contribute to novelty. The conversation further addressed the concept of convergence in evolution, suggesting that certain physical invariants in the environment could lead to the evolution of similar traits in unrelated organisms. They concluded by noting that while there might be contingency in evolution, there are also reasons why certain outcomes arrive.
30:50 Scientific Instrumentalism: Control, Prediction, and Philosophy
The discussion revolved around the nature of scientific instrumentalism and its role in understanding and predicting systems. The participants debated whether science was primarily an instrumental enterprise, with the primary aim of control and prediction. They also touched upon the potential circularity in this approach, with the model being instrumental itself and proposing that the brain is also in the business of prediction and control. The conversation also explored the potential for instrumentalism to undermine science as an explanatory enterprise. However, it was noted that instrumentalism could also be part of a larger philosophical framework, such as pragmatism, and could be used to understand evolutionary reasoning. The discussion concluded with the idea that instrumentalism should not be confused with metaphysics, but could be a method of approaching reality.
39:14 Aesthetics and Evolution: Exploring Beauty's Role
Timothy and Matt discussed the role of aesthetic experience and beauty in human life and the natural world. They considered the possibility of evolutionary explanations for the development of organisms with a refined aesthetic sense. Timothy emphasized that beauty is a fundamental part of a fulfilling life and is not merely an illusion or capable of being "explained away". They also explored the idea of symmetry being inherently beautiful and how it could be a fundamental property of the universe. The conversation touched on the limitations of reductionist evolutionary psychology and the potential of beauty to be a source of satisfaction.
49:56 Emergence, Thermodynamics, and Evolutionary Theory
The meeting primarily revolved around a discussion on the nature of complexity and emergence, using the framework of thermodynamics and evolutionary theory. The conversation explored the concept of "Eros" as a force driving emergent order, and the need for a source of aim or agency to explain this trend. The idea of "concrescence" was introduced as an organic mode of explanation, suggesting a synthesis between what's already been actualized and what's possible. The discussion also highlighted the importance of continuity in an evolutionary account and the role of selection at various levels.
55:31 Metaphysics and Reality Principles Debate
Timothy and Matt discussed the concept of metaphysics and the principles that underlie reality. They debated the idea of a characterless, most generic principle, such as continuity, as a foundation for understanding the diversity of reality. They also discussed the concept of prehension and concrescence as part of their framework. The conversation touched on the use of terms like "feeling" and "experience" in Whitehead's philosophy, expressing concerns about the baggage these words carry. The idea of an inherent topology in a primordial vibratory flux was also explored. The potential role of a primordial entity establishing rules of extensive connection was discussed, with Whitehead's thoughts on the matter being a significant reference point.
1:08:10 Chance, Emergent Goals, and Finalism
Timothy also touched upon the idea that even though the universe may be founded on chance or contingency, it can still be full of non-chance elements such as emergent goals or finalism. The conversation also explored the concept of determinism and the possibility of starting from the arbitrary and building a picture of finalism. Timothy clarified that he doesn't view those who reduce everything to chance as the enemy. Matt ended with the idea that everything that follows after the original accident must conform to the structure of constrained possibility that it has established.
1:12:38 Language, Translation, Science, Religion, and Metaphysics
The participants discussed the importance of language and translation in science and religion. Matt emphasized the need to bracket emotions to focus on truth, while acknowledging the role of metaphysics in other domains. He also suggested the need to retranslate from a more scientific, metaphysical, ontological discussion into theological content. The discussion also highlighted the potential danger of religious belief and the importance of a harmonious resonance between science and religion. The next steps outlined included diving deeper into Whitehead's propositional theory and framing the broader project.
Not a bad summary actually….
The question, whether decision-making needs to go all the way down as a metaphysical, or logical consequence or not, misses the point that we need it on pure physical grounds to be at the lowest level if we want to understand quantum mechanics. THIS is the beauty of Whitehead's framework in my view: That it can actually turn quantum mechanics from "shut up and calculate" to "just like you and me". The collapse of the electron-wave-function-field into actual located electrons are actual occasions, just as the spark of realization "oh! I AM! (therefore?) I think!"
Sorry, this should have been a question to Matt, and/or Tim.
And I do not mean "conscious particle'.
I mean just "existens". As "something, that can influence future events"(!??).
I'm not a free energy principal person.
I'm just free energy principal curious. >^.^
My ongoing try at understanding a dc circuit is that charge flows thru a conductor when the particles (copper being good at this) align their magnetic moments. The load pulls this charge in one direction as current. The voltage is a circular gate that allows a separation from the voltage in the world, and makes the circuit possible. The battery supplies the voltage difference. I'm not sure if this can be translated to quark spin and the Higgs Bosun field creating a tubular time with a shell of hydrogen, that fragments into elements. If creativity is 2^9 coming from the center, where the allowing and asserting are balanced as sweet spot, where the failed attempt at tube (going to disc) has this surplus, it kind of makes sense. Symbiosis as object building from fragments, breaking of symbiosis opening the path in the exponents.
if humans evolve their perception of themselves to facets that are different experiences of one human object, this one human object can now be placed in the world justice system, the dodecahedron or 2^5 interaction possibility sets. The intelligence machine that is the world object might be considered as a series, 2^1, 2^2, 2^3, 2^5 etc.
As a new born, the facet laying on their side develops what Vervaeke might call religio relatio, comfort as a connection between massive forces of gravity and light, one set of allowing and asserting balanced, 2^1.
Held upright, 2^2 as trade and family language join the sacred language, the triangulation of face, horizon, objects assuaging the wants and needs apart from the sacred balanced in the 2^1.
Development of self as coherent wave that moves and embraces a wave in two areas, the human and non-human. Each embrace something like a second of attention span, where repetition diminishes so the person is objectified in one perceptual language rather than a balance, otherwise a balance leading to 2^3, again the three languages in the exponent, and 8 seconds of perception attention span.
Coming from the different direction to see the 2^7, the galaxy with one black hole and one sun split into many suns in their pie slices of different ages, same as human. A shell (the one sun) breaks apart and the parts try to form a tube but settle for disc, which has a sweet spot. In this sweet spot a shell forms, the intelligence machine as this. Example, Sun has solar system disc which has a sweet spot as Earth which has life as a shell, this shell has many GI tracts and plants as tubes that form a disc (or fails as a vortex). The 2^5 is the sweet spot there, a true justice system for the world, which might lead to a new shell as 2^7, where the galaxy disc is the sweet spot to move to 2^11 outside the universe via light thru black holes perhaps, universe as object with others in an ocean of dark matter.
Thanks for the show.
I venture that what's established about the 1:06:00 mark is that, with the best will in the world, Tim just doesn't know anywhere near as much about Whitehead's thinking as Matt does. Being an evidently bright bloke, Tim has formed notions and prejudices on the strength of ANW's greatest hits and has very interesting things to say about these apprehensions, which I'm much enjoying. I'm also thinking it's very sweet how tactful Matt is in pointing out that, actually, because ANW was also evidently bright, he got there first - and most of Tim's apprehensions are misguided.
Haha - in Australia we say (affectionately) “thank you, captain obvious” - it’s abundantly clear I don’t know remotely as much about Whitehead as Matt (and that Matt is always tactful and gracious in his responses). However I don’t think the implication that all of my apprehensions about Whitehead’s work are the result of my ignorance is likely to be correct - some certainly are, but some are not. I have deep respect for Whitehead as a philosopher though, hopefully that’s clear.
Don't get me wrong - the conversation is going BEAUTIFULLY, and you know 100X more about ANW than I do (and clearly think sympathetically with him), and 1,000X more about all the adjacent stuff. As a dabbler, I'm finding it wonderfully instructive listening to the two of you - and I'm looking forward to more. I was just struck by the elegance of Matt's comment, "There could be this basic Ur form, which is just the rule by which a burgeoning cosmos can establish when something's overlapping with something else - it's not even geometry yet, it's before space and time as measurable forms of extension; but again Whitehead's not sure he's discovered what any of these are", as a rejoinder to your hesitations about a what is is that "goes all the way down and "can be as characterless as possible", but which you don't accept as "God". Sharing those hesitations and having the same reaction, I found Matt's sketch of how ANW (perhaps) anticipated and moved beyond the hestations nicely done.
@@tobymnewton thanks for your engagement and I’m really glad you’re enjoying the chats. I think this is something Matt and I will be returning to again and again in our conversations, and indeed something we’ve been talking about for years already. I have this concern with leanness or minimalism in metaphysics, and that’s indeed something I’m probing Whitehead on. Matt’s response was elegant indeed. We’ll also revisit this territory when we start discussing Wolfram in more detail (which is probably after we get a decent draft of our article on Whitehead’s theory of perception in relation to the FEP together). Thanks again mate!
Sorry, one more comment:
As a scientist (physicist) I think science is more about understanding than "truth".
I understand the scientific method as: we emagine a stary about the world, that shall help us understand the world, in the sence, that we can anticipate future events.
But truth lies with the events themselves, not in our story about them.
To say science is about truth sounds to me as if asserting the status of reality to our scientific theories... And isn't that, what Whitehead calked: "missplaced concreteness" or something like that. To misstake our abstractins as real??
Sorry, maybe you could help me to understand this better, by clarifying what you ment by "science is about truth.", Matt?
That would be extremely apretiated.
Also:
Whiche of your 3 chatbots should i talk to to get the fullest experience?
Ah, i just re-watched that part. You (matt) said science brackets beauty and emotion to focus ob truth.
I think now, i understand and agree, or mostly agree.
As you yourselfe said: the beauty of the matematical formalism is one of the guiding-rails for finding truth... But yea: the goal is truthfully describing reality (if possible in a beautyfull way)😄
? Correct??