Process Thought: Process Thought: A Very Basic IntroductionA Very Basic Introduction

By Fr. Charles Allen, Ph.D.By Fr. Charles Allen, Ph.D.For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see “Process Thought for Freethinkers & Other Naturalists” at For a more detailed discussion of this topic, see “Process Thought for Freethinkers & Other Naturalists” at

www.therevdrcharleswallen.com/ProcessThoughtforFreethinkers.docwww.therevdrcharleswallen.com/ProcessThoughtforFreethinkers.doc

What is process thought? What is process thought? It’s a broad, mostly American It’s a broad, mostly American philosophy of nature.philosophy of nature.It views the everyday world as, It views the everyday world as, fundamentally, comprised of fundamentally, comprised of active processes (I’ll call them active processes (I’ll call them activities), as opposed to inert activities), as opposed to inert substances.substances.Some process thinkers call Some process thinkers call themselves theists (their critics themselves theists (their critics don’t believe them).don’t believe them).Others are thoroughgoing Others are thoroughgoing naturalists.naturalists.For more information (For more information (Stanford Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyEncyclopedia of Philosophy): ): http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

Some Notable Process ThinkersSome Notable Process Thinkers

Heraclitus Karl Marx (?)G. W. F. Hegel (?) C. S. Peirce

William James John Dewey George Herbert Mead Bertrand Russell (?)

Alfred North Whitehead Charles Hartshorne Nicholas RescherGiles Deleuze

Some Related InstitutionsSome Related Institutions

http://www.ctr4process.org/

http://www.santafe.edu/

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/index.html

http://www.csus.edu/cpns/

Process thought in a nutshell:Process thought in a nutshell:1. All things are activities or properties of activities.1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

Different process thinkers add all sorts of details, but every time they do, Different process thinkers add all sorts of details, but every time they do, they make the whole thing more debatable.they make the whole thing more debatable.So I suggest we stick to these two principles, and leave more detailed So I suggest we stick to these two principles, and leave more detailed accounts for later.accounts for later.Inert things (e.g., particles, rocks, tables, chairs, etc.) are comprised of Inert things (e.g., particles, rocks, tables, chairs, etc.) are comprised of activities that interact to form relatively stable patterns.activities that interact to form relatively stable patterns.Some activities interact in ways that amplify their originality (e.g., people, Some activities interact in ways that amplify their originality (e.g., people, animals, cells, genes, electrons, etc.).animals, cells, genes, electrons, etc.).Interacting activities are the most concrete and influential realities; anything Interacting activities are the most concrete and influential realities; anything else (particles, atoms, people, ideas, etc.) is somewhat abstract, though no else (particles, atoms, people, ideas, etc.) is somewhat abstract, though no less real, and not without influence.less real, and not without influence.

Central Theories

Peripheral Theories

Interpretive Observations

Is process thought empirical?Is process thought empirical?

It’s as empirical as any worldview can be, and (arguably) It’s as empirical as any worldview can be, and (arguably) more empirical than most. more empirical than most. It claims to be experience-based. It claims to be experience-based. But it insists that experience always includes But it insists that experience always includes participation and interpretation, not just observation. participation and interpretation, not just observation. It refuses to speculate about anything beyond It refuses to speculate about anything beyond conceivable experience.conceivable experience.But it claims that there are certain principles found in But it claims that there are certain principles found in everyday experience that turn out to be exemplified in everyday experience that turn out to be exemplified in any conceivable experience whatsoever.any conceivable experience whatsoever.It can’t be decisively proved or disproved by a “crucial It can’t be decisively proved or disproved by a “crucial experiment.”experiment.”But neither can any other worldview like materialism, But neither can any other worldview like materialism, idealism, determinism, etc.idealism, determinism, etc.Furthermore, many philosophers of science recognize Furthermore, many philosophers of science recognize that none of the central theories of any empirical science that none of the central theories of any empirical science can be directly confirmed or refuted by any specific tests can be directly confirmed or refuted by any specific tests (on this, see the crucial discussion on “Science and (on this, see the crucial discussion on “Science and Pseudoscience” by Imre Lakatos, available online at Pseudoscience” by Imre Lakatos, available online at www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.htmwww.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscienceTranscript.htm). ). But any ideas can still be critically assessed in terms of But any ideas can still be critically assessed in terms of how readily they can describe an endless variety of how readily they can describe an endless variety of situations—real or imagined—and process thought situations—real or imagined—and process thought welcomes that kind of assessment.welcomes that kind of assessment.

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

What about materialism (or physicalism)? What about materialism (or physicalism)?

Some process thinkers are physicalists; Some process thinkers are physicalists; others, like Bertrand Russell, call others, like Bertrand Russell, call themselves “neutral monists”; others sound themselves “neutral monists”; others sound more idealistic.more idealistic.Obviously, a variety of interpretations are Obviously, a variety of interpretations are possible, and process materialism is one of possible, and process materialism is one of them.them.There have been about as many different There have been about as many different definitions of “matter” as there have been of definitions of “matter” as there have been of “God.” “God.” There’s no good reason to assume matter There’s no good reason to assume matter can’t be interactive.can’t be interactive.Hardly any physicist today thinks of matter Hardly any physicist today thinks of matter as a bunch of inert billiard-ball-like particles.as a bunch of inert billiard-ball-like particles.Under the right conditions, there’s no reason Under the right conditions, there’s no reason to assume that interactive matter can’t think to assume that interactive matter can’t think or wonder—those are both interactive or wonder—those are both interactive processes.processes.So if your computer ever passes the Turing So if your computer ever passes the Turing test, start treating it with more respect.test, start treating it with more respect.

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

What about reductionism? What about reductionism?

There are different kinds of reductionism. There are different kinds of reductionism. Process thought itself could be said to Process thought itself could be said to “reduce” everything to activities and their “reduce” everything to activities and their properties. properties. Daniel Dennett makes a helpful distinction Daniel Dennett makes a helpful distinction between good and “greedy” reductionism.between good and “greedy” reductionism.Greedy reductionism confuses reducing Greedy reductionism confuses reducing with replacing—as if you could understand with replacing—as if you could understand an essay by simply looking up the an essay by simply looking up the meanings of each of its words. meanings of each of its words. Good reductionism simply analyzes Good reductionism simply analyzes complex interactions in terms of simpler complex interactions in terms of simpler ones, without denying complexity, but ones, without denying complexity, but without invoking any “external” agencies.without invoking any “external” agencies.Good reductionism and an informed Good reductionism and an informed holism don’t have to compete, and process holism don’t have to compete, and process thought makes it easier to reconcile them.thought makes it easier to reconcile them.

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

What about determinism? What about determinism?

Obviously, process thought rejects extreme versions of determinism—the Obviously, process thought rejects extreme versions of determinism—the idea that an activity could be determined by other things in ways that would idea that an activity could be determined by other things in ways that would exclude any sort of originality. exclude any sort of originality. Some things may be exclusively determined by other things, but if that’s Some things may be exclusively determined by other things, but if that’s the case, those things are not activities (though they still depend on the case, those things are not activities (though they still depend on activities).activities).Granted, no matter how original an activity may be, it will also exemplify Granted, no matter how original an activity may be, it will also exemplify practically countless predictable and general properties: originality is practically countless predictable and general properties: originality is always relative. always relative. But every activity is more than the properties it exemplifies: it exemplifies But every activity is more than the properties it exemplifies: it exemplifies them in a relatively original, unrepeatable way.them in a relatively original, unrepeatable way.Process thinkers admit that originality is difficult to describe—descriptions Process thinkers admit that originality is difficult to describe—descriptions require abstractions, but originality, though relative, is never abstract.require abstractions, but originality, though relative, is never abstract.But we do But we do experience experience originality in the novelty and unrepeatability of every originality in the novelty and unrepeatability of every moment—to deny or exclude it would be anti-empirical.moment—to deny or exclude it would be anti-empirical.Maybe we need distinctions between “good” and “greedy” versions of Maybe we need distinctions between “good” and “greedy” versions of determinism, as well as “informed” and “fluffy” versions of originality?determinism, as well as “informed” and “fluffy” versions of originality?

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

What about natural selection? What about natural selection? What other kind could there What other kind could there be? be? Varying traits survive only to Varying traits survive only to the extent that they cohere the extent that they cohere with varying environments. with varying environments. There is no controlling external There is no controlling external purpose (process naturalists purpose (process naturalists and process theists agree on and process theists agree on this). this). Many purposes do emerge in Many purposes do emerge in nature, but they are a result of nature, but they are a result of everyday interactions, not everyday interactions, not external interventions.external interventions.

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

Why should naturalists care about process thought? Why should naturalists care about process thought?

Process thought “naturalizes” the development of life, Process thought “naturalizes” the development of life, feelings, purposes, thoughts, rationality, artistic creativity, feelings, purposes, thoughts, rationality, artistic creativity, etc., more smoothly than mechanistic worldviews.etc., more smoothly than mechanistic worldviews.In other words, it makes it easier to explain why life can In other words, it makes it easier to explain why life can have meaning and value without having to mention have meaning and value without having to mention anything beyond the interactions of everyday existence. anything beyond the interactions of everyday existence. So it undercuts most of the arguments of popular theism. So it undercuts most of the arguments of popular theism. Many theists: a) equate naturalism with greedy Many theists: a) equate naturalism with greedy reductionism, and b) assume that theism is the only reductionism, and b) assume that theism is the only alternative to greedy reductionism.alternative to greedy reductionism.Process thought refutes both of these assumptions.Process thought refutes both of these assumptions.Likewise, it helps to reconcile the aims of the natural Likewise, it helps to reconcile the aims of the natural sciences with the aims of the arts and humanities.sciences with the aims of the arts and humanities.It has successfully anticipated most of the novel It has successfully anticipated most of the novel developments in the sciences in the past century.developments in the sciences in the past century.There are process theists too (like me!), and their There are process theists too (like me!), and their numbers are growing, but they may have more in numbers are growing, but they may have more in common with process naturalism than with popular common with process naturalism than with popular theism.theism.

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

The crucial point here: The crucial point here: Process thought REFRAMES Process thought REFRAMES most of the traditional debates most of the traditional debates about fundamental issues. about fundamental issues. If you accept the two If you accept the two principles of process thought, principles of process thought, you’ll find that the meanings of you’ll find that the meanings of terms like “matter,” “mind,” terms like “matter,” “mind,” “body,” “spirit,” “nature” and “body,” “spirit,” “nature” and “God” are all beginning to “God” are all beginning to shift. shift. They haven’t lost all continuity They haven’t lost all continuity with their popular meanings, with their popular meanings, but they’re definitely shifting. but they’re definitely shifting. And there’s definitely room for And there’s definitely room for conversation about when it’s conversation about when it’s OK to use them, and even OK to use them, and even about whether some of them about whether some of them have been rendered obsolete.have been rendered obsolete.

1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.

Why Process Theists & Process Naturalists Need Each OtherWhy Process Theists & Process Naturalists Need Each Other

On the question of God, process naturalists, with Laplace, On the question of God, process naturalists, with Laplace, are convinced they have “no need of that hypothesis.”are convinced they have “no need of that hypothesis.”Process theists view God as the ultimate, all-interactive Process theists view God as the ultimate, all-interactive activity, not an hypothesis, nor an exception to process activity, not an hypothesis, nor an exception to process thought’s principles, but their ultimate integration.thought’s principles, but their ultimate integration.At this level of generality, there are no knock-down At this level of generality, there are no knock-down arguments or crucial experiments to settle which viewpoint arguments or crucial experiments to settle which viewpoint is more reasonable—both can claim a kind of simplicity is more reasonable—both can claim a kind of simplicity and adequacy to shared experience.and adequacy to shared experience.But the reasonability of both views can still be critically and But the reasonability of both views can still be critically and fruitfully debated.fruitfully debated.So far, whenever one group has produced an original So far, whenever one group has produced an original argument to show the rational advantages of its own argument to show the rational advantages of its own approach, the other has responded with a similarly original approach, the other has responded with a similarly original argument on behalf of its contrasting approach.argument on behalf of its contrasting approach.In fact, at this level of generality, the ease with which In fact, at this level of generality, the ease with which proponents of related but contrasting worldviews can proponents of related but contrasting worldviews can remain in critical conversation with one another is perhaps remain in critical conversation with one another is perhaps the most crucial test of their rational merits.the most crucial test of their rational merits.

Laplace

Dewey

Whitehead1. All things are activities or properties of activities.2. All activities are interactive—relatively interrelated, yet relatively original.