Thanks a lot, very inspiring. Currently working through Whitehead and tomorrow have a seminar on Schelling within the course of German idealism - and that was the way I found your videos. I give my regards back in time of your predefence in a sort of retentionalizing act ) thank you for your voice and rhythm, they made certain things revealed

Glad to see you are approaching the gates of academia. Hope the committee heard you "not only with their ears but through their ears.",spiritual audition so commonly impaired these days. Good luck be with you. Larry Bloom M.D.

I'd agree there are problems with our current conceptions of conscious beings, so all thought-through alternatives are a good thing. I'll not pretend to fully grasp the alternative you offer via Schelling and Whitehead but from watching your videos for a long time I'm sure it's an interesting and refreshing position. Not sure how well your audience will understand that alternative already, but perhaps describe it more fully in this? Anyway, best wishes!

Best wishes regarding your upcoming defense!!

Interesting. :) Good luck on your defense!

you have a message.

How would one test hypotheses with this new conception of nature as an ecology of subjects?

Are you familiar with Samuel Alexander philosophy?? I read something lately and you may like his view on values and deity. He was a contemporary of Whitehead, whom he influenced.

Pretty clear. "ontological commitments" Nice pair. I'm guessing you unpack, compare and differentiate their commitments, and support your stance. As an aside. I suspect you may agree or perhaps will someday that Darwin incorrectly assumes his autopoietic anthropology. It's kind of a drag that he even has to be in the conversation, but... Good Luck.

Hi Matt, Coming back to Kant's negation of the possibility of a Newtonian explanation of the natural world , would n't you say that I.Prigogine's did do just that , orat leaststarted ding that, with his theory of dissipative sructures? Didn't that give us an understanding of the mechanistic/ dynamic behind the evolutionary dynamic of living systems?

@Footnotes2Plato

7 жыл бұрын

Kant didn't negate the possibility of a Newtonian/mechanistic physics, only a Newtonian/mechanistic biology (I should add that Newton's physics is only partially mechanical, as he still speculated about what might have allowed gravitational forces to be instantaneously communicated to distant bodies in space; these speculations included the idea that angels were responsible for communicating gravity). And no, I don't see Prigogine's work as a culmination of Newton's approach. Prigogine says in his own books that physics must give up on the idea, so central to Newton, that nature is deterministic and that its processes can be predicted with absolute certainty. Also, Newton's equations work regardless of the arrow of time, while Prigogine showed that many processes are irreversible.

We can I no no

this is very complicated,