From: jimruttshow8596
Forrest Landry’s work, termed “Imminent Philosophy,” delves into fundamental concepts of the universe, with a particular focus on the relationship between self and reality, or the subjective and objective [00:05:01]. This philosophy aims to build an understanding of the universe from basic fundamentals, distinguishing itself from traditional metaphysics that might “make some up and ask you to believe or have faith” [00:01:51]. Instead, it seeks to create clear concepts useful for fields like science and computer science [00:23:50].
Why Study Imminent Metaphysics?
The endeavor into an imminent metaphysics is considered worthwhile due to its relevance to contemporary challenges such as existential risk and civilization design [00:02:52]. These issues often relate back to ethical concerns and values, necessitating a deeper understanding of the nature of consciousness [00:02:58]. Key questions addressed include:
- What is the nature of choice and how do we make them? [00:03:04]
- Is choice even real, especially given debates around free will in the scientific community? [00:03:08]
- How do we conceive of notions like goodness or basic methodology for knowing anything at all? [00:03:43]
This pursuit is geared towards improving individual and collective decision-making [00:04:16].
Metaphysics: Ontology and Epistemology
Historically, metaphysics addresses two primary questions: “what is” (ontology – the study of existence and the nature of being) and “how do we know” (epistemology – the nature of knowledge and the phenomenology of Concept of consciousness by which we perceive things) [00:05:32]. Other branches like axiology (what’s valuable) and aesthetics (what’s beautiful) extend from this core [00:06:20].
Forrest Landry’s definition of metaphysics is an inquiry into the nature of the relation between self and reality, specifically the interaction between the subjective and the objective [00:05:01]. A core premise is that the relationship between the subjective and the objective is real [00:07:01]. This perspective views perception (the flow from objective to subjective) as fundamental, conceiving of “the perceived” (objective), “the perceiver” (subjective), and “perceiving” (the process) [00:07:30].
The Concept of Self
The “self” is defined as the product of all choices one has made and all choices one could make [01:13:10]. This obscure-sounding definition is seen as having significant utility for understanding downstream concepts [01:13:23]. The notion of self, characterized by choice, is considered crucial for grounding concepts like ethics and aesthetics [01:14:08]. Just as causation applies to the objective world, choice applies to the subjective self [01:14:24].
This leads to a fundamental “triplicate” of perceiver, perceived, and perceiving [01:14:37]. Similarly, there is a triple of choice, change, and causation [01:14:56]. The relationship between the subjective and objective is described as more fundamental than the perceiver and perceived themselves [01:11:00].
Quantum Interpretations and the Observer
Forrest Landry tends to prefer interpretations of quantum mechanics that focus on the notion of measurement [01:17:34]. The discussion centers on how quantum mechanics understands the relationship between the space of possibility and probability, and the space of forces in time [01:18:24]. Measurement is seen as a coupling of these [01:18:49].
Regarding the role of self as an observer in quantum systems, an observer is considered an epiphenomenon of the interaction [01:33:30]. The concept of an observer is implied in the notion of interaction [01:34:46]. To establish whether something exists, an interaction with it is necessary [01:36:37]. This means interaction is in some sense more fundamental than existence, and even more fundamental than creation [01:40:30].
In this philosophy, “to exist,” “to be real,” and “to be objective” are distinct claims [01:10:06]. The perception itself is considered real, while the perceived is something we come to know through the vehicle of perception [01:39:50].
Interaction vs. Relation
- Relation: A-temporal; mathematics studies structures of relationships without requiring a temporal element [01:31:00].
- Interaction: Inherently temporal; involves a before and after, a flow of information, and the potentiality of other outcomes [01:31:50]. It implies concepts like temporality, information flow, and probabilities over possibilities [01:32:46]. This framework can construct information theory, communication theory, measurement theory, and signaling theory [01:33:13].
The Mind-Brain Relationship and Concept of consciousness
Rejecting Cartesian Dualism
Cartesian dualism posits a separation between mind and matter, or substance in the world versus ourselves as beings [01:58:40]. Cognitive science largely rejects this, asserting that mind is an emergent manifestation of brain [01:57:53]. However, the emergence of mind from the brain then opens up new domains of inquiry beyond just physics [01:59:58].
Forrest Landry’s work contrasts with both idealism (mind-first) and realism (matter-first) by asserting that the relationship between realism and idealism, between mind and body, is the primary subject of study [02:00:48]. The relationship between the subjective and the objective is described as unconditional [02:01:19]. Descartes’ “I think therefore I am” highlights that the process of thinking is the basis for establishing being, suggesting that ontology is dependent upon epistemology [02:01:29].
Limitations of neural correlates of consciousness
While neuroscience can demonstrate strong correlations between subjective experience and brain tissue (neural correlates of consciousness) [02:09:11], this does not fully answer the “hard problem” of nature of consciousness [02:10:04]. The hard problem asks why this moment is this one, and correlations alone don’t explain causation or distinguish between now, past, and future [02:10:17]. Correlation doesn’t provide the philosophical tools to understand the first-person perspective or the asymmetry of time [02:11:14].
Consciousness as Process
Concept of consciousness is viewed as a dynamic system [02:12:16]. John Searle’s analogy compares Concept of consciousness to digestion: it’s not a singular “thing” to point to, but a complex process involving various biological components [02:12:44]. This process is biologically expensive in terms of energy and genetic information, implying a purpose, such as reducing the combinatorial explosion of choice [02:16:10].
Forrest Landry emphasizes that even with a strong understanding of consciousness as a biological process, the underlying hard problem persists [02:22:02]. The core of the problem lies in understanding the “selectivity of the notion of locality” – why Concept of consciousness is localized to a specific place, moment, and possibility [02:22:07]. Physicalist models, focused on third-person descriptions, lack the tools to explain the transition from a third-person perspective to a first-person one [02:22:33].
The Concept of consciousness is deeply bound to the concept of time and to the notion of “hard random” (potentiality or probability over possibility) [02:21:01]. The fact of a subjective experience is directly connected to temporality and the notion that other things could have happened [02:21:27]. This perspective aims to clarify concepts to better address these fundamental questions about nature of consciousness and its role in evolution [02:25:22].