Here is a summary of where I think I am. Subject to change. The Chat AI suggested the following “pithy” descriptions:
1) Process Monism
2) Naturalistic Realism
3) Agnostic Pragmatic Realism
4) Causal Naturalism
I think I will go with Process Monism, as it “Emphasizes [my] belief that everything is part of an unfolding, interconnected causal process rather than discrete substances.” As an auxiliary description, I will hang onto Agnostic Pragmatic Realism as it “Highlights [my] agnosticism, practical reliance on science, and realist commitment to a world beyond perception.”
Anyway, here are my particular points of view.
Reality – There is a reality beyond our perception. Our perception is definitely limited, and incomplete, and may introduce distortions. In essence, I reject idealism.
Cause and effect – Are true. They may be deterministic or indeterministic. The universe irrespective of indeterminacy is chaotic.
Free will – Because cause and effect are true libertarian free will is false and we don’t have it in this sense. Compatibilism just muddies the waters and leads us to falsehoods.
Morality – If free will is false and if cause and effect are true, then the concept of morality does not make sense. Of course most people, me included, have a sense of morality, which is a product of evolution. Societal imprinting helps fill what to be moral about.
Truth and knowledge – I am generally agnostic, ie I can never be sure. Having said that, some descriptions are more accurate than others. The accuracy can be judged by how well the truth and knowledge correspond to our perception of reality. Or how well they help us navigate reality. While I am not sure of my position I feel forced to take one step after another.
Monism – Because the process of cause and effect extends back in time well beyond my conception and similarly for everything else, then the unfolding universe can be seen as “one process”. I am skeptical of one substance monism, but it is largely irrelevant to me.
Science – Or even the scientific method I find is the best way to try and attain the truth. This is certainly true of the hard sciences. And likely true of disciplines like history anthropology and archeology. The interesting thing is that the economic, political, psychological, and social sciences have the potential to feedback and alter future events. This feedback ultimately makes predictability limited. People sometimes confound that recognizing there are different layers of description of reality with scientism.
Pluralism – While I think the scientific method is the most accurate way to try and access direction, truth, and knowledge, I accept other methods of exploring reality. Literature, art and music are fine. Either for simply enjoyment or to look for some deeper truth. But at the end of the day, we should reconcile whatever we find with its utility or accuracy in describing the different aspects of the universe.
Consciousness – This definitely remains a mystery for me. I am far from convinced that it is not an epiphenomenon. I have a grudging sympathy for a limited physicalist’s panpsychism. There seems to be plenty of evidence against mind/matter dualism.
God – Philosophically agnostic, pragmatically atheist. When discussing god or gods, I think it pays to be clear about the type and context of the god being discussed.
Religion – I am not a fan of how it is practiced in general. However, I tend to agree with its etymological sense: to reconnect. The question is to reconnect with what? God, the Earth, nature, society, with one another? For me the answer might be the universe; of course, I recognize I was never disconnected in the first place.
I may have borrowed from the following philosophers according to ChatGPT:
John Dewey (Pragmatism and Epistemic Pluralism):
Your focus on pragmatic step-by-step action and plural methods aligns closely with Dewey. Not heard of him until the last week or so. Not really read anything of his knowingly
William James (Pragmatism, Pluralism, and Naturalism):
James’s ideas on truth as what works practically, alongside his openness to pluralism and spirituality, resonate with you. Read some of his work, disagreed with him particularly on free will, but agreed with his stance on compatibilism.
Baruch Spinoza (Monism and Naturalism):
Spinoza’s view of the universe as one unified process or substance aligns with your causal monism. His naturalistic “God or Nature” parallels your view of reconnecting with the universe. I have not read anything much of him but have read lots of snippets. I have a book of his, maybe I will have a second attempt.
Galen Strawson (Realism and Panpsychism):
Your sympathy for limited panpsychism and physicalism overlaps with Strawson’s “realistic” monist views. Yes. Strawson has influenced me, particularly on his take on free will and causa sui.
Bertrand Russell (Agnosticism and Naturalism):
Russell’s agnostic atheism and scientific realism share common ground with your positions on truth, science, and God. Again Russel has influenced me strongly.
Albert Einstein (Naturalistic Spirituality):
Einstein’s rejection of a personal God while embracing a “cosmic religion” rooted in awe of the universe parallels your sense of reconnection. I have read some of Einstein’s shorter pieces. Again his main influence has been on my take for free will.
David Hume (Skepticism and Naturalism):
Hume’s skepticism about certainty, focus on empiricism, and naturalistic approach to morality as a product of human nature are similar to yours. I have not read anything of Hume directly, but it is hard to open a philosophy book and not find his fingerprints on it.
Modern Process Philosophers (e.g., Whitehead):
While you’re not explicitly process-oriented, seeing the universe as unfolding causality mirrors process philosophy.
rom's corner 
Thanks for your honesty, as usual. You have covered a lot of ground in the above. I will try to respond to a few pieces of it.
LikeLike
Monism—I looked this up in the Stanford Encyclo of Philos and got slammed with a bunch of symbolic logic:” for which my computer has no symbols. or I would give you a sample. But it did clearly say, there are many kinds of monisms.
I looked further into the article and found this B. Russell quote:
“I share the common-sense belief that there are many separate things; I do not regard the apparent multiplicity of the world as consisting merely in phases and unreal divisions of a single indivisible Reality.”
Got to say that I tend to disagree with that, but then it is all about terms. Of course there could not be a “multiplicity” if Reality is “indivisible.” But then if there are “many separate things” then how do they interact in a significant way or at all?
Everyone must take the multiplicity and unity of things seriously, so we are all stuck with nuances of how that works with both elements being importantly true.
Some important philosophers just come out and say the whole issue is “the One and the Many” as does William James and A.N. Whitehead I like that.
Then it becomes what your preferences are, for greater/basic Unity or greater/basic Diversity And Dennett and some others then have been forced to say it comes down to some basic Intuitions. For example, you are basically impressed with the Separateness from us of “reality” (“Realism”). I am more impressed with the ultimate Unity of reality and how all things eventually shift back into some one Big and probably Vaguely defined “Thing.” Idealists (and other antirealists) contend that The One is a process but not one focused around the permanence of some one spacial-temporal thing unless that is something like “history” and “evolution.”
I agree, Dualism is just too farfetched. There are no two basic Substances, but there may be two basi9c kinds of behavior that respond to, are explained by, some very different kinds of explanations.
Seems like I tried to say too much. This shit does get plenty garbled up.
I’ll try a little more later. Thanks, be well.
LikeLike
For example, you are basically impressed with the Separateness from us of “reality” (“Realism”).
Can I suggest don’t tell others what they believe or are impressed with. I have to admit this can be annoying after a while, especially when it wrong. Monism for me as I have explained a few times is the opposite of
“separateness”. If you are interested in what I perceive monism as then have a quick read of this.
Monism – rom’s corner
LikeLike
I like your idea of trying to keep points short. I will try.
So, from Monism to Consciousness. Yes, a very peculiar “thing.” Its “the thinking thing” said Descartes, as opposed to all the other things that are things extended in space (and time). Dennett says, ‘Con is the most familiar thing, yet the strangest.’
Dennett also contends that Con is a basic fact, that cannot be denied at least in some form. In fact, he contends that the way we experience Con, as a thing of ascending and descending forms is a profound fact, “the kind to build a theory on.” Ascending from non-con as in simple matter, to us as in very complexly organized matter with significant new abilities (like thinking), to maybe even “god” or mathematics as ‘pure thinking’ or pure form. In the middle ages this series was referred to as “the Great Chain of Being.”
Consciousness is the basis for the theory of Evolution, that rising chain of expanded abilities. The rising “layers of existence” or ways of talking about existing things becomes very important to Keeping Some of the Dualist Vision and altering it to make it more believable.
Con becomes the main property of “Mind.” Now, “mind” is also a very strange ‘thing’ because it is not clear at all if mind is only brain. In fact, that issue is one of today’s great issues, though it is seldom discussed in polite society (jokes Dennett in his Sweet Dreams lectures/book).
The philosophers I like—Dennett, Rorty, Dewey, James—“reduce” mind to Society as a collection of brains organized around (programmed) a language and a set of traditions (Wittgenstein’s “way of life”). This is Not to be taken as just some arbitrary ‘subjectivity’ added on top of the real material world. “Society” is a metaphysically significant thing (no scare quotes necessary). It is as real as the individuals (more real in a way—it is “emergent”) that compose it and as real as the cells and atoms that compose them.
That I take to be the truth of Pluralism, as opposed to monism. It seems a lot like what you try to get out of your idea of a “Process Reality, or Process Monism: Many Things somehow emerge out of the One thing. Whitehead is one of the famous Process philosophers (though modern), along with Spinoza and Leibnitz. A.N. Whitehead is, of course, just a plain old Idealist, as are the other two (but no one is simply an Idealist and not also a Realist, as I tried to say in reference to monism.)
Now Idealism strikes most people as just basically weird, but it is not. It contends that the “objectivity” of things, there being outside of us, and having little to do with us, is a by-product of the set of relations to us and other things that they are always in. Their separateness is in relation to (their “usefulness to” the other things around them—William James).
It is like math. They reality and objectivity of “12” is its relationship to all other numbers. 12 has no reality in itself. Atoms have no reality in themselves either, but only in relation to all the other ways that people live in modern society! Both Consciousness and Atoms are Abstractions (partial truths says ANW)) of the widest (conceptual) systems we now operate on or in—this difficult collection of ideas that swarm around Realism and Antirealism.
Maybe I should quit here, and so I will. Thanks for the opportunity to rehearse this line of thought. I hope it makes some sense to you. I’ll read it later and see if it does for me!
LikeLike
Consciousness is the basis for the theory of Evolution, that rising chain of expanded abilities.
Stating things as facts when in fact they are debatable is an interesting method of discussion. So the theory evolution of archaea is based on consciousness?
First demonstrate the consciousness is not an epiphenomenon and then I might consider your contention.
Mind only brain? The evidence suggests it is at least chemistry as a well administered dose of anesthetic demonstrates. Fentanyl in my case.
Like monism there are many flavours of idealism. The strange one is where something does not exist until we perceive it. Now of course our perception instruments (senses) and interpreters (brain) and programming (society/education) put a spin on the output (beliefs).
Atoms and reality? When someone comes at your noggin with a baseball bat, the said atoms in the bat and the resulting goose egg are not real? Along similar lines, a nice quote:
I cannot prove that electrons exist, but I believe fervently in their existence. And if you don’t believe in them, I have a high voltage cattle prod I’m willing to apply as an argument on their behalf. Electrons speak for themselves.
Seth Lloyd
When I was replying to you on your blog, I asked ChatGPT whether your position held any similarity to postmodernism. The reply went along the lines Absolutely. Of course the Democratic Party’s postmodern line of thinking (Critical Theory) is what got the US into mess it is now in. See how things are connected?
Reality of 12 … pah! Semantics.
I hope I shed some light where you might rethink your line of thinking.
LikeLike
ChatGPT on Whitehead and idealism:
Rejection of Classical Idealism: Whitehead rejected traditional idealism, particularly the type found in figures like Berkeley or Hegel, which posits that reality is fundamentally mental or grounded in ideas. Whitehead did not reduce the world to mental phenomena or subjective experience. He was deeply critical of positions that denied the reality of the external world.
Focus on Events and Processes: Whitehead’s metaphysics revolves around actual occasions or events, which are the fundamental units of reality. These are not material particles but processes that have both physical and mental aspects. This duality makes his philosophy neither purely materialist nor purely idealist.
Panexperientialism: Whitehead’s idea that all entities (not just humans) have some form of experience or subjectivity is sometimes associated with a form of panpsychism or panexperientialism. While this can seem idealistic, Whitehead grounded these experiences in a relational, processual view of reality rather than an overarching “mental realm.”
Primacy of Relations: In Whitehead’s philosophy of organism, entities are defined by their relationships and interactions, not by isolated substances. This relational view contrasts with materialist reductionism but doesn’t align with idealist immaterialism either.
LikeLike