Thanks Consul.Belindi wrote:
Consul , if you substitute "process" (singular) for "processes" (plural) (as per Broad) don't you find that process becomes a synonym for nature itself?In that case you would find yourself free to argue for brain-mind identity as aspects of the same process, i.e. nature. Nature, I submit is the only substratum ; ontological substratum being defined as cause of itself. Cause of itself i.e. nature has only god as possible contender for the status of cause of itself. What is the point of adding an extra self-sustaining cause? Could you reconsider process ontology by substituting process for processes?
(Consul replied)
I'm not sure what you mean. One process can be many processes, in the sense that one macroprocess can be composed of or constituted by many microprocesses.
Self-causation is impossible: nothing can be causa sui. But maybe you mean self-existence. One traditional characteristic of substances is existential independence. Nature, the natural world as a whole may be one big substance, with all apparent other substances (and substrata) being ontologically reducible to complexes of attributes or modes of the One. (This is Spinoza's worldview.) Of course, for process ontologists, nature is not one big substance but one big process, with all apparent substances being ontologically reducible to complexes of processes.
I do start from Spinoza . I concede that Spinoza's term regarding the ontological status of nature, causa suiis perhaps better " self existence", in order not to get side tracked into the matter of causal determinism. I refer to nature as what you call "macroprocess". What I would very much like to know is whether or not Spinoza's "nature as one big substance" can be interpreted to mean nature as "one big process". I would appreciate your comment, please.
I wonder very much if Spinoza's ontological system can be modified in such a way.