From: jimruttshow8596
Forrest Landry’s work, particularly his “imminent philosophy,” delves deeply into the fundamental nature of choice and its implications for understanding the universe and making effective decisions [00:00:55]. This philosophical undertaking aims to build an understanding of the universe from basic fundamentals, rather than relying on abstract, unprovable metaphysical assertions [00:01:54].
Why Study the Nature of Choice?
Landry emphasizes the importance of understanding choice, especially given contemporary challenges like existential risk and civilization design [00:02:49]. These grand challenges often relate to ethical concerns and values, necessitating a clear grasp of what choice is, how it’s made, and even if it’s real [00:02:58]. There is significant debate within the scientific community regarding concepts like free will [00:03:08]. A deeper understanding of these concepts can inform how we approach choice-making at community levels, ensuring it is sensible and grounded [00:03:32]. Ultimately, the goal is to enhance individual and collective choice making and design [00:04:16].
Metaphysics and Choice
Landry defines his metaphysics as an inquiry into “the nature of the relation between self and reality,” specifically “the interaction between the subjective and the objective” [00:05:00]. This contrasts with traditional metaphysics, which often concerns “the nature of the ground of being” or theology [00:04:40]. Landry’s approach considers the relationship between the subjective (the perceiver) and the objective (the perceived) as foundational [00:06:54]. The process of perception is seen as more fundamental than the perceiver or the perceived themselves [00:11:05].
The Self and Choice
In Landry’s work, the “self” is defined as “the product of all the choices you have made and all the choices you could make” [00:13:10]. This includes memory (past choices) and capabilities (future choices), forming a “product space” that considers both actuality and potentiality [00:15:36]. This characterization grounds the notion of self in choice, providing a framework for understanding complex philosophical concepts like ethics and aesthetics [00:14:00].
Choice, Change, and Causation
Landry posits a fundamental “triplicate” of choice, change, and causation [00:14:56]:
- Change relates to the nature of the relationship [00:15:02].
- Causation relates to the nature of the object [00:15:04].
- Choice relates to the nature of the subject [00:15:09].
Understanding the intrinsics of choice is crucial for developing principles of effective choice and making “good choices or wise choices” [00:30:16].
Interaction vs. Relation
A key distinction in Landry’s work is between interaction and relation:
- Relation is atemporal; it concerns mathematical structures or timeless truths. If a mathematical proof is true, “it has always been true before I even knew that” [00:31:00].
- Interaction inherently has a temporal element, involving a “before” and “after” [00:31:49]. It represents the flow of information from the objective to the subjective, and the moment this occurs is an interaction [00:32:16]. This implies concepts like temporality, flow of information, and the existence of other possibilities [00:32:43].
The concept of an observer is implied in the notion of interaction [00:34:49]. When attempting to verify something’s existence, an interaction is required, positing “the potentiality of verifying that the moon does in fact exist” [00:36:35]. This shifts the basis of knowing from a prior assumption of deterministic existence to the interaction itself [00:37:30].
The Role of Metaphysics: Reifying Power
Landry’s metaphysics is less about “proof” in the mathematical sense (validity) and more about “soundness” [00:45:31]. Soundness is a practical measure of whether a model or concept from one domain can clarify or correspond to another domain, enabling “applicability” [00:46:12].
This utility is termed “reifying power,” which means taking something vague and making it more definite or structured, increasing its clarity [00:51:50]. It’s about enhancing the usefulness and trustworthiness of concepts, allowing for reliable action and better decision-making [00:55:20]. The more a concept can clarify something vague into something clear, the greater its reifying power [00:56:00].
Mind from Brain and the Hard Problem of Consciousness
Landry acknowledges the strong correspondence between subjective experience and brain tissue observed in neuroscience [01:09:07]. However, he argues that even perfected knowledge of neural correlates would not answer the “hard problem” of consciousness [01:09:54]. This problem concerns why a particular moment is “this one” – the qualitative, subjective nature of experience, or qualia [01:10:09].
Neural correlations describe “what’s happening,” but don’t inherently explain the temporal element of now or the distinction between past and future [01:10:33]. The hard problem arises because a “first-person perspective” (subjective experience) cannot be fully derived from a purely “third-person orientation” (objective, physical description) [01:22:33].
Landry’s metaphysics attempts to bridge this gap by starting from the premise that the relationship between the subjective and objective is unconditional [01:01:14]. It seeks to characterize the intrinsic nature of process itself, which underlies comparison, measurement, signaling, and even the core concepts of choice, change, and causation [01:04:30]. This “process ground” is fundamental, implying that even the act of “doubt about doubt” presupposes the concept of doubt itself [01:05:57]. Consciousness, like time, is intrinsic to the notion of process and involves a “symmetry breaking” that localizes experience to a specific time, space, and possibility [01:21:01].