how so? could you explain?

Imagine Nietzche Heggel and kant together...ironic !

Man as progressive man, Super-man... towards Noumena through Dialectics...

So does process philosophy address the inherently digital/discete nature of thought?

Process philosphy addresses the primordial (eternal, changeless, static) realm of the possible or ideal and the consequent(flux,change,process)the realm of the actual.
So the process view of nature is dipolar.
The process theology view of god is also dipolar.

I think this would correspond to your current fascination with the digital or discrete versus the continuous, although not perfectly.

If you are not familiar it would be worth your time to cover the basics.
A.N. Whitehead is tough reading, a whole new terminology, mostly to try to avoid confusion with meanings attached to old terms.

I've heard of it, and of course there's Nietzsche who switches being for becoming as truth....I will check it out. But one thing is especially important to me. Does he examine what for me is a fact? That our thinking (not feeling or sensation) is 100% discrete at all times and places?

Well you know, process philosophy is a theory of reality, not a independent theory of mind.

Most process philosophers are panpsychsts (mind or properties of mind are a fundamental feature of reality) all the way down to the core of nature.

They are also neutral monists (mind-matter are the two inseparable poles of reality, all events have both a material and a mental aspect).

Process reality is composed of moments or droplets of experience (events)and so mind would be discrete as well as pervausive. Our minds anyway. The mind of god in the process theology version is a different matter.

Well, human experience is tangible. So you either have to negate tangible human experience or assimilate it. What say you, brother philosopher?

...Carbon is outdated...Silicone is more like it...a prime materials revolution...Son of man A.I.

Ok, i see that it's a real world plan then. I was at first thinking it was a concept system only.

It was the first time in my life I was ever attacked for the use of reason. ..and on a philosophy forum!!

Yes, because God is a person, and has reasons. But Aristotle had a teleological conception of the world, in terms of which he tried to explain all events. It was Galileo who finally put paid to this conception. And then, science took off. You can find the story in Randall's, The Making of the Modern Mind. Now, we are being confronted with a regression.

It is a common misconception that evolution seeks to explain the first cause. It does not. And it does not seek to explain why humans exist in this world, but only how they came to exist in this world. In other words, you can accept evolution, still believe in whatever superstitious/mystical reason you want for why we exist, and not contradict yourself.

Well I find it fantastic that you and some guys get to say what Evolution is all about...its a laugh !

I know, it's hilarious. Believing something is what it is, that's insane. We should always consider that something is more than it is, you're right. Let us twist definitions to suit our liking, and then everything will mean as we wish! No one could ever tell us we're wrong either, because we can just say, "Why can't X word mean more than it's conventional usage?!".

Brilliant stuff here.

...One thing is the meaning of Evolution another is to recognize a roll in that, or do you defend that there are functions with no purpose ? Not so brilliant if you are naive enough to think so...:whistling: