Matthew Segall Granted My Request for Erratum. The Straw Man Came Back Wearing a Presupposition.
Research record: GitHub source and revision history · canonical published edition
A reductio of the post-erratum rebuttal: I subtract no evidenced experience. My D+?X retains the process-relational and experiential commitments the evidence already supports.
In short: Leaving Matthew David Segall's universal identity claim open is not the same as subtracting experience. My position keeps every process-relational and experiential commitment the evidence supports and leaves unresolved only the claim that every concrete causal actuality is experiential feeling. If suspension counts as subtraction, suspension has been redefined as denial.
My D+?X retains the process-relational and experiential commitments the evidence already supports.
It does not posit a nonexperiential remainder or subtract experience from any evidenced case; it leaves unresolved Matthew David Segall’s universal identity claim that “every concrete causal actuality everywhere just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance”.
This is the reductio that breaks Matthew David Segall’s objection to my question. If leaving the universal identity open already counts as subtracting experience, then suspension has been redefined as denial. That does not prove Whiteheadian panexperientialism wrong, nor should it have to: demanding deductive disproof of a whole ontology would set the wrong burden, because competing metaphysical accounts are typically compared by relative evidential support, explanatory gain, discriminatory power, and vulnerability to counterevidence, not by proving every rival impossible.
What the reductio does is collapse the move by which my suspension of the universal identity is redescribed as subtraction. If asking whether A = B already commits the questioner to A without B, then uncertainty has been converted into negation and the disputed identity has been protected from genuine comparison.
The remaining question is therefore not “where did experience go?” I never removed it. The question is: what independently warrants the universal identity in the first place?
There is one part of this dispute we no longer need to debate: Matthew Segall publicly misrepresented my position, then explicitly withdrew that attribution. Good. Corrections matter. The problem is that the same underlying reconstruction did not disappear. It kept returning in different forms: as an alleged presupposition of my question, an alleged feature of my factorization, an alleged implication of my analytical method, and finally as something my suspension supposedly “slides” back into. In each case, the claim changed form, but the missing step remained the same: no derivation was given showing how my actual premises entail the position being attributed to me.
Or more simply stated:
Matt said I believed something I did not believe. He later admitted that and withdrew it. But instead of the mistake disappearing, the same assumption kept coming back in different forms: first as something supposedly built into my question, then into my method, then into my analysis, and finally into what my uncertainty supposedly “really means.” Each time, the wording changed, but the missing step stayed the same: he still did not show how my actual premises logically lead to the position he keeps criticizing.
After the explicit misattribution was withdrawn, the pressure of the rebuttal increasingly moved from the missing derivation to me, the questioner. Instead of showing that my stated premises entail a detachable nonexperiential remainder, the reply increasingly treats the very act of asking what warrants universal X as evidence of a defect in my framing, method, posture, or intelligibility conditions.
The closest standard description in the peer-reviewed literature is a recurring straw-man reconstruction sustained by question-begging presupposition: the rejected position is repeatedly reintroduced in new inferential forms without being derived from your actual premises.
Before we follow that chronology, the target has to be fixed. My starting point is already surprisingly close to Whitehead. I assign high current confidence to much of the process-relational core where the evidence warrants that confidence: concrete events are dynamically related, inherit conditions from prior events, make real differences to one another, unfold through temporal becoming, and are not well described as isolated pieces of inert substance. Embodied experience is real, causal efficacy matters, and Whitehead captures features that thinner physicalisms miss.
The unresolved step is the word all. I have not found evidence that presently discriminates whether every concrete causal actuality, at every scale and everywhere in the universe, is literally identical with experiential feeling or felt inheritance. Experience is already inseparable from my picture. The question is how far the evidence lets us extend it.
Openness is not equal weighting. Whitehead can be ahead of some rivals; some rivals can be rejected; other whole ontologies can remain serious. D + ?X is therefore not Whitehead with experience surgically removed. D contains the substantial process-relational overlap and every instance of experience already in evidence; X is the further claim that every concrete causal actuality everywhere just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance; ?X leaves only that universal identity unresolved. In every case where Matt and I already have evidence of experience, D + ?X contains as much experience as his Whiteheadian view does. The disagreement begins only where that identity is promoted beyond the evidenced cases to all causal actuality. If the overlap fractures, my method says to stop factorizing and compare whole theories instead.
This produces the simplest reductio in the article. If withholding the universal identity already counts as subtracting experience from the cases where experience is present, then epistemic suspension has been converted into ontological negation. Before water = H₂O was established, asking whether water was H₂O would already have counted as stripping H₂O out of water; asking whether lightning was electrical discharge would have posited a non-electrical lightning-stuff. That is absurd. Uncertainty about A = B does not entail A without B. Matt can still argue that universal X is the best explanation. What he cannot obtain from the mere existence of ?X is the conclusion that I have already denied or removed X. The reductio targets that subtraction argument, not his positive Whiteheadian case.
The same problem recurs in six forms throughout the exchange: suspension becomes negation; requesting evidence becomes a presupposition against the questioner; universal experience is built into the meaning of “experience”; shared evidence is made to select between theories that equally contain it; failure of factorization is treated as selecting Whitehead; and a comparative hypothesis becomes a condition for intelligible comparison itself.
Nor is that question alien to the scholarly tradition. Whitehead himself framed the universal experiential move conditionally in Adventures of Ideas: “if we hold” that final actualities are occasions of experience, then “on that hypothesis” our direct experience can suggest categories for nature more generally. It is far from demonstrated or self-evident.
Jorge Luis Nobo later called this Whitehead’s “basic working hypothesis.” Shepherd and Hartshorne disputed the warrant for psychicalism; Kimball later challenged the causal-efficacy bridge; McHenry and Shields compared Whitehead with contemporary analytic panexperientialism; and Jarocki’s 2024 audit still treats the major panpsychist argument families as live and contested. The record does not settle the answer in my favor. It shows that asking what earns the universal step belongs inside the debate. (Whitehead Encyclopedia, 2023; Nobo, 1978; Shepherd, 1974; Hartshorne, 1976; Kimball, 1999; McHenry & Shields, 2016; Jarocki, 2024)
Matt put the challenge plainly on September 10:
“But I honestly don’t feel like you’ve exposed some major hole in my position.”
yes, I think we’ve reached the point where the record can speak for itself. I trust readers to assess how it has all gone down since January (if they have the stamina to track it all!).
To reiterate, I accept that your present position is not that causal actuality is nonexperiential, but that you believe its intrinsic character remains open, and that your factorization is conditional rather than an assertion of nonexperience. My categorical objection, to reiterate, is that I do not think “causal actuality” can be held fixed as a metaphysically neutral common term while feeling is bracketed as a further possible characterization. Experience is not a predicate for reasons I’ve already argued. To me, your analytical operation already abstracts from the only concrete character of causal efficacy we know of and then treats the abstraction as independently intelligible. I understand that you think that factorization is epistemically legitimate. I don’t. We may just need to leave that disagreement where it is for now.
I also admit that what I’d call your legalistic approach has frustrated me, and that while I won’t say that justifies my behavior, I was hasty in some of my replies as a result. But I honestly don’t feel like you’ve exposed some major hole in my position. I’ve appreciated some of your incisiveness, for sure. i think it has helped surface more clarity at least in what I understand myself to be arguing.
The deeper problem is that we seem to inhabit sufficiently different philosophical language games that we are unusually prone to misunderstanding one another. My own recent misunderstanding of your conditional factorization was also colored by the fact that earlier this year you were defending a more explicitly emergentist position, in which experience arose under particular organizational conditions. Your position has since become more agnostic, and I should have tracked that shift more carefully.
At this point I’m not interested in continuing the audit dispute. Hopefully our actual disagreement is clear, if not to you than to most readers. You think the causal-process description can be analytically held open with respect to experientiality. I think that apparent neutrality already contains the abstraction I’m objecting to.
If by “major hole” Matt means that I must produce a deductive contradiction proving Whiteheadianism impossible, then he is answering a question I never asked and imposing a standard that would be absurd for most truth-apt claims about our shared empirical reality. We do not normally decide between serious empirical or metaphysical hypotheses by proving every rival logically impossible.
We compare how well they fit the evidence, what they explain, whether they discriminate themselves from alternatives, what novel or risky consequences they have, and what would count against them. I have never claimed to have deductively refuted Whitehead, nor has my argument required that. Recasting my challenge that way therefore functions as a deflection from the actual issue and risks the classic error of irrelevant conclusion, or ignoratio elenchi: answering a different question from the one under dispute.
The question I have actually asked is whether Matt’s universal conclusion is better warranted than its strongest rivals. On that question, five load-bearing gaps remain visible: scope and transport, semantic transport, rival discrimination, theory selection, and revision conditions. None proves Whiteheadian panexperientialism false. They show why its universal identity claim can remain a serious hypothesis without yet being earned as the conclusion.
Call the withdrawn structure P: the claim that my argument requires causal actuality to be intelligible independently of experience, with experience treated as an optional predicate, addition, or detachable characteristic. The central question is therefore much simpler than “can Nathan prove Whitehead impossible?” It is: does Matt ever derive P from something I actually affirm, or does P keep reappearing in different forms without that derivation?
Later in this article, I go further into the specific demonstrable gaps in Matt’s argument that would need to be bridged before I could assign a defensible epistemic credence to his universal claim, or, more simply, before I could say how much confidence the evidence actually warrants. If he is willing to engage with what I have actually argued and supply those missing bridges, I would count that as a win for both of us, because the point is not to defeat each other but to improve our shared chances of getting the truth right.
The erratum, four recurrences, and the reductio they produce
On August 30, Matt wrote:
“Nathan’s request for an erratum is fair… I want to admit that I did collapse the two-way conditional structure of his argument, and his explicit agnosticism regarding the primitive intrinsic character of causality. I should have made that collapse explicit as my own argumentative move rather than risk misattributing the resulting position to him.”
“My objection is not that Nathan has chosen the nonexperiential variant…”
“this identification of bodily feeling and causal relation as such bears a comparative burden with alternative metaphysical accounts of causation.”
Nathan’s request for an erratum is fair. I haven’t read the entire reply he has shared, since I just don’t have the time right now. But I want to admit that I did collapse the two-way conditional structure of his argument, and his explicit agnosticism regarding the primitive intrinsic character of causality. I should have made that collapse explicit as my own argumentative move rather than risk misattributing the resulting position to him.
That said, there remains a substantive disagreement that Nathan himself recognizes when he asks whether the decomposition between experiential and non-experiential understandings of causal relation is finally coherent. I do not think it is finally coherent to sever affectivity from causal relation, even hypothetically. My objection is not that Nathan has chosen the nonexperiential variant, but that the factorization already treats causal uptake, integration, transition, response, etc, as a common core that can be rendered intelligible independently of feeling.
My argument that “experience is not a predicate” was trying to get at this issue. I accept Nathan’s point that his argument does not depend on Whitehead’s technical definition of that term. But my proposal is not that an antecedently intelligible causal relation possesses an additional experiential feature, but that concretely considered, causal relation just is felt inheritance of the past into the present.
Schelling made a convergent point against Newtonian physicists in his 1797 text Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature: “You can in no way make intelligible what a force might be independent of you. For force as such makes itself known only to your feeling.” He goes on to say that physics nevertheless makes objective use of the concept of feeling in its explanations of causal relations. This does not by itself prove nature is experiential, but does make the case that the supposedly objective concept of causal force derives its concrete intelligibility from embodied feeling.
Now, I agree with Nathan that this identification of bodily feeling and causal relation a such bears a comparative burden with alternative metaphysical accounts of causation. But my identity claim is not offered as the detection of an additional feature. Rather, it competes abductively with rival accounts of what causality concretely is. Here is where Nathan’s epistemic asymmetry between physicalism and panexperientialism breaks down. A “physical” description gives us abstract structural dynamical relations, whereas embodied experience provides the one case in which causal efficacy is disclosed directly from within. Again, this doesn’t necessarily prove the universal extent of experiential relations, but it does provide an evidential basis for asking whether the supposedly experientially neutral causal core is itself an abstraction from something more concrete.
So while the comparative burden is one I take seriously, there is no scheme-neutral standpoint that might vindicate one scheme over another (as Nathan himself also seems to admit). The relative verification of a scheme is sought in its general success in elucidating experience across the various domains of human life (including but not limited to scientific investigation), and not in its peculiar certainty or initial clarity of first principles. Rival schemes are experimental matrices of categories whose warrant is determined through comparison of their coherence, adequacy, applicability, and avoidance of misplaced concreteness. We cannot start our comparison of schemes by assuming an experience-neutral common ground of causality in relation to which the rivals might be judged, since whether such a concept of causality is legitimate or already too abstract is precisely what is in dispute.
So I grant that Nathan was not positively asserting feelingless causality. My question is whether causality can even be rendered hypothetically in a concretely intelligible way after feeling has been analytically bracketed out. I take Whitehead’s panexperiential proposal to be a fallible but evidentially motivated speculative generalization, not an experiential predicate arbitrarily added to an otherwise complete causal description.
Let me say a final word on Nathan’s concern about how LLMs/machine learning systems preserve or corrupt the provenance of arguments. I admitted above I have not had a chance to read his entire reply as closely as I’d like, since I just don’t have the time or energy given my other responsibilities to produce the overwhelmingly detailed textual reply that he (with help from his LLM) has provided in reply to my post. The obvious remedy would be to have my own LLM summarize and draft a reply for me. But I worry this would only multiply misunderstandings, and for reasons internal to our dispute itself. On the accounts I’ve offered in my recent monograph and elsewhere, LLMs traffic only in abstract statistical patterns of tokenized text and are constitutively blind to the felt inheritances that render linguistic meaning concretely intelligible. My point is not that this sort of abstraction cannot be tremendously useful in the right contexts. My point is that that sort of abstraction of felt meaning from structural patterning is precisely what we are debating. So I would rather respond selectively to what I’ve had time to review and digest than to manufacture the appearance of comprehensiveness by outsourcing the exchange to a system that is blind to precisely what we are disagreeing about.
That concession fixes the original error and, importantly, preserves the real philosophical dispute: the identification of causal relation with feeling bears a comparative burden. That is almost exactly where I want the argument to remain. Unfortunately, it’s been met with many documented diversions along the way.
First recurrence: from a withdrawn commitment to a presupposition
On September 1, Matt relocated the objection:
“I’ve conceded in the erratum that my post collapsed your conditional into a commitment, and I withdraw that attribution. But my criticism was aimed at the categoreal form of your question itself, ie, at what the question already presupposes about what experience is.”
“Both forks of your conditional cast feeling as something that might add to, or contribute a characteristic to, a process that can be specified without it.”
Hi Nathan, my sense of what's transpired at this stage is that you are reading my critique as a claim about your ontology, ie, about what you positively asserted. I've conceded in the erratum that my post collapsed your conditional into a commitment, and I withdraw that attribution. But my criticism was aimed at the categoreal form of your question itself, ie, at what the question already presupposes about what experience is.
Both forks of your conditional cast feeling as something that might add to, or contribute a characteristic to, a process that can be specified without it. A characteristic is a predicate. I have been arguing that your agnostic position is not in fact neutral but already assumes that experience is some kind of characteristic or predicate. So I cannot treat your factorization as a neutral test with my thesis as one possible outcome. My actual thesis doesn't show up as a candidate within the grammar you are deploying. An occasion can be described abstractly (though never exhaustively) in terms of its various characteristics, but the subtraction of experience from an occasion does not leave the same process or structure minus a feature. It leaves no process, only forms, sans the felt flux that realizes them.
Whitehead's scheme allows us to distinguish the character of an occasion (the eternal objects it exemplifies, including not just its mathematical spatiotemporal structure but the subjective, affective, and valuational forms of its feelings) from its actual occurrence, the experiential act of feeling itself. The characteristics can all be analyzed, and so regarding which forms of feeling should be attributed to which occasions, your comparative question is perfectly legit. But experience as such is not analytically separable from an occasion's process of actualization, since it is that process. The very existence of an actual occasion cannot be “left unresolved.”
We can agree that analytical distinguishability is not ontological separability. We disagree not about whether the distinction can be made but about how the two sides are classified. Suspension of judgment makes sense as regards a characteristic but not as regards the very occurrence that one is supposed to be describing. An agnostic can withhold judgment about what is happening. But they cannot withhold judgment about whether anything is happening while describing what happens. The vacancy is not a missing characteristic or predicate but the place where the occurrence occurs.
You seem to suggest my claim is circular and merely definitional. It is a categoreal claim, which I justify in the same way Kant justified his claim that existence is not a predicate, ie, by way of the problems that result when it is treated as one. A hundred real dollars contain not a cent more than a hundred possible dollars. Whether the Benjamin exists in my pocket or not adds nothing to the concept, yet its removal leaves me broke. Treat experience as a characteristic and analogous issues follow, ie, the combination problem if the characteristic is attributed everywhere, the emergence problem if it is attributed only late in cosmogenesis, and Humean skepticism of real influence if it is withheld or denied while the causal structure retained. Your factorization reproduces the last problem even as a conditional, since a structure whose actuality is held “unresolved” exercises no influence. So I can grant your first antecedent—that feeling adds no characteristic beyond inheritance, receptivity, integration, and response (because those verbs already name it)—while also denying your second, and nothing in my position need change. This suggests to me that the forks are not exhaustive.
The inventory of the thinner rival (inheritance, receptivity, integration, novelty, organization, real influence) lists forms or characteristics of process. It is not a rival account of the happenings but an account of their characteristics mistaken for the happenings. This is what Whitehead meant by misplaced concreteness.
It is possible that the distinction between character and occurrence, or eternal objects and actual occasions, could itself be shown to be confused or unnecessary (if, eg, a dispositional account of causality rendered influence intelligible in entirely structural terms). I strive to remain open to alternative accounts, though I am not convinced they avoid the problems I find important.
That is the first post-erratum recurrence of P. The evidential status changes, but the load-bearing content does not: what I supposedly believed becomes what my question supposedly presupposes.
Here are the safeguards that were already on record:
“I repeatedly leave open that the factorization itself may fail, including the possibility that there is no phenomenally neutral causal carrier separable from feeling.”
“I explicitly state that analytical distinguishability does not imply ontological separability.”
“My framework says that if subtraction changes the target, stop subtracting and compare whole rival accounts instead.”
“I affirm concrete occurrence and real causal influence; what remains open is not whether anything happens, but whether concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling.”
@Matthew David Segall A few explicit parts of my argument already block your reading here:
I repeatedly leave open that the factorization itself may fail, including the possibility that there is no phenomenally neutral causal carrier separable from feeling.
I explicitly state that analytical distinguishability does not imply ontological separability.
My framework says that if subtraction changes the target, stop subtracting and compare whole rival accounts instead.
I affirm concrete occurrence and real causal influence; what remains open is not whether anything happens, but whether concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling.
Your constitutive identity claim is therefore not excluded by my grammar; it is one of the possibilities the comparison is meant to test.
The only thing that can sound predicate-like is shorthand such as “what does feeling add?”, but my explicit methodological qualifications already rule out reading that as a commitment to detachable properties.
I am not reading your surviving criticism merely as a claim about my ontology. I distinguish the original ontological attribution, which you have now withdrawn, from your remaining categoreal objection that my question itself presupposes experience as a detachable predicate; the points above are directed specifically at that latter claim.
I accept your clarification that your thesis is not that causality has experience as an intrinsic characteristic, but that concrete causal actuality just is felt inheritance / experiential actualization. That corrects one compressed phrase of mine, not the structure of my argument.
Your own acknowledgement that a dispositional account of causality might render real influence intelligible without your character/occurrence distinction shows that the rival space I am asking us to compare is not excluded in principle.
This is also the same question my article originally asked.
So the crux remains very narrow: I am not asking whether Whiteheadian occasions can be stripped of experience while remaining Whiteheadian occasions.
I am asking what independently warrants Whitehead’s constitutive identification of concrete causal actuality with experiential feeling over serious whole-rival accounts that do not make that identification, and what evidence would make that identity claim lose.
Those statements do not prove my method correct. They establish what my method is. I allow factorization to fail, deny that analytical distinction entails metaphysical separability, and switch to whole-rival comparison if subtraction changes the target. If Matt thinks P nevertheless follows from some premise I affirm, the missing step is a derivation.
That distinction is exactly what the philosophical literature on presupposition requires us to keep straight. Presuppositions are ordinary background commitments, not automatically fallacies. The problem is an illegitimate presumption when the disputed conclusion is smuggled into the framing or when a crucial premise cannot be supported independently. (SEP, Presupposition; IEP, Fallacies)
The bridge for the gaps in Matt’s own argument cannot be built out of an accusation that I should not have asked him where the bridge is.
By “bridge,” I mean the argument that gets Matt from the evidence we both grant to the stronger universal claim that all concrete causal actuality is experiential. That missing justification cannot be replaced by saying I should not have asked for it.
There is a structural resemblance here to presuppositional apologetics, where worldview-level commitments can be treated as conditions for intelligibility rather than as contestants within a neutral comparison. The comparison is structural, not genealogical: I ask what warrants X; the reply says the act of asking already assumes a world intelligible without X. (Ingersoll, 2017)
The clean test is simple. If Matt can derive P from premises I actually affirm, he has exposed a defect and I should revise. If the derivation works only after the disputed Whiteheadian identity is already treated as necessary for intelligible causation, then X has stopped being merely one candidate and has started governing which candidates are allowed into the comparison. Generalize that rule and every ontology can self-certify: the idealist says questioning universal mind presupposes matter, the physicalist says questioning reduction reveals dualist contamination, the creationist says requesting evidence presupposes godlessness. Congratulations. Every worldview wins. Unfortunately, the method has stopped distinguishing winners.
And I should clarify, because this point most frequently gets misunderstood.
”Winning” here means earning more confidence, not defeating a person or scoring debate points. If Matt’s argument survives the strongest alternatives better than mine, I should update toward it. If it does not, the claim should remain open. The only thing I want to win is a more accurate picture of reality.
The reductio can now be stated formally: epistemic uncertainty about A = B does not entail the ontology A without B. Matt therefore needs an independent bridge from my comparative bookkeeping to the ontological separability he attributes to it. Without that bridge, the objection redescribes suspension as subtraction and then criticizes the subtraction it supplied.
Matt later acknowledged the methodological consequence:
“Helpful clarifications.”
“if subtraction changes the target, we should compare whole rivals, and a whole rival must have content.”
Helpful clarifications. So from my point of view this is where we have arrived:
Suspending judgment on an attribution leaves a subject with a property left open. Suspending judgment on an identity claim about what concrete actuality is leaves no account of what it is. So by your own rule, if I understand you aright: if subtraction changes the target, we should compare whole rivals, and a whole rival must have content. The rivals with content are the powers accounts, which I just addressed preliminarily in the other thread.
I answered with the remaining question:
“The remaining question is what makes the felt-inheritance interpretation win over those rivals.”
@Matthew David Segall, I agree with the first part: a serious whole rival needs positive content, and merely saying “not Whitehead” would not be enough. Where I think your conclusion stops following is the next step: suspending one further identity claim does not leave “no account” of actuality, because a rival can positively characterize concrete actuality as real, dynamic, relational, dispositional causal process while leaving unresolved whether that process just is felt inheritance. In my framework, “whole rival” means target-preserving and positively specified, not metaphysically exhaustive, and the powers accounts you now identify are precisely the kind of substantive rivals I have been asking us to compare against your additional identity claim.
So I think we are finally engaging the comparison I have been asking for from the beginning: not “Whitehead or nothing,” but Whitehead’s identity claim versus serious positive rivals that preserve real causal actuality without making that same identification. The remaining question is what makes the felt-inheritance interpretation win over those rivals.
Back in April or May I made this explicit: I’m not rejecting Whitehead wholesale. I think he gets an enormous amount right about process, relation, becoming, inheritance, novelty, organization, and the inadequacy of static substance metaphysics; the point where I stop is the universal identification of concrete actuality with experiential feeling or felt inheritance. So my argument has never been “Whitehead versus my ontology,” but “how much of Whitehead survives before that final universalization, and what independently warrants taking that additional step?”
That should have narrowed the dispute considerably. If the factorization fails, the comparison method changes. The winner does not get selected automatically.
Second recurrence: the presupposition becomes a “complete neutral account”
On September 5, Matt first acknowledged defects in his audit:
“you’re right that my audit was put together too quickly. It overstated several points which due to lack of time I did not sufficiently confirm. I accept your corrections…”
He then reconstructed my argument this way:
“It imagines that we first possess a complete, empirically neutral account of causal actuality and then asks why ‘experience’ should be added as a further feature.”
Nathan, you’re right that my audit was put together too quickly. It overstated several points which due to lack of time I did not sufficiently confirm. I accept your corrections and appreciate the concessions you made in the cases where the audit was accurate.
What has frustrated me throughout our exchanges is not that you have attacked me personally. Polemical does not necessarily mean ad hominem. I called your approach polemical because its tone is often prosecutorial, and because your questions are posed as if I have simply evaded them. In fact addressing these questions has been central to my published work for well over a decade.
Your present question is a good example. You now grant what you call a process-relational causal core of concrete occurrence, inheritance, receptivity, integration, response, novelty, etc. You then ask what warrants the further claim that concrete causal actuality is universally experiential rather than leaving its intrinsic character open.
But this formulation still assumes precisely the distinction I have been contesting. It imagines that we first possess a complete, empirically neutral account of causal actuality and then asks why “experience” should be added as a further feature. My claim is that this supposedly neutral causal core is already a free floating abstraction.
This has been a core argument in my published work, including in my article “The Varieties of Physicalist Ontology” (2020), my books Physics of the World-Soul (2021) and Crossing the Threshold (2023), through more recent articles including “Physics Within the Bounds of Feeling Alone” (2023), “Whitehead’s Radical Notion of Prehension” (2025), and most recently my Substack post “Against Physicalism’s Misplaced Concreteness” (May 2026), among many other publications. My basic move borrows and extends Whitehead’s interpretation of our felt embodiment and its place in a robust hermeneutics of nature. Yes, physics gives us extraordinarily successful abstract descriptions of causal structure, but it tells us nothing about the nature of causal occurrences themselves; embodied causal efficacy gives us our only concrete disclosure of causation from within.
In Symbolism, Whitehead develops his account in dialogue with Hume and Kant. Hume looks for necessary causal connection in clear sensory presentation and does not find it. Kant largely accepts that starting point and relocates causality into the synthesizing activity of the understanding. Whitehead instead challenges their shared starting point. Clear sense perception, what he calls “presentational immediacy,” is a derivative mode of perception. Beneath it lies perception in the mode of “causal efficacy,” most intimately disclosed through the “withness of the body,” ie, the eyes’ involvement in seeing (which becomes apparent when dust gets under our eyelids), visceral affect, fatigue, pressure changes (causing our ears to pop), and more generally the rush of the immediate past into the constitution of a novel present.
This is a phenomenological account in the broad sense, but the bodily feelings Whitehead uncovers are not primarily “intentional” in the specifically Husserlian sense. They are prehensional. On this account, a subject does not first exist and then apprehend an object. It becomes a subject through its reception and integration of an already actual world. Intentional directedness is a higher achievement built upon this more primitive causal-affective mode of inheritance.
To be clear, my argument is not: “Some causes are accompanied by experience, therefore all causes must be experiential.” My argument is that the one case in which causal efficacy is disclosed concretely rather than merely as an abstractly reconstructed model reveals causation as receptive inheritance, as the past entering into and making a difference to a presently becoming actuality. Whitehead’s “feeling” is the speculative generalization of this minimal prehensional character.
I cannot accept your sense that we share an empirically neutral “shared causal core.” What exactly are receptivity, inheritance, integration, and response once every concretely felt sense of being affected has been bracketed? What is inheritance apart from the way a past becomes ingredient in a present, and what meaning can be given to “a present moment” without an experiential point of view? What is integration if inherited differences make no difference to an actual occasion doing the integrating?
An answer given entirely in terms of mathematical relations, dispositions, structural transitions, or counterfactual dependencies continues to describe abstract patterns of causation. These are handy for modeling. They leave the ontological question dangling. Physical science doesn’t need to answer the ontological question (on its own structural terms, it can’t!); but as a philosopher, it is precisely what I am seeking to address.
I do not regard the panexperiential generalization as symmetrical with the physicalist one. Physicalism moves from the success of abstract mathematical description to the claim that such abstractions exhaust the meaning of concrete actuality. Panexperientialism instead begins from the concrete case in which causal efficacy is disclosed directly in bodily feeling, notes that such feelings could be the only real sources of the meaning of all our concepts of causal influence, and abductively generalizes feeling/prehension throughout nature, being careful to avoid importing the higher features of consciousness, intentionality, cognition, or self-awareness into primitive actuality.
The case for this abductive move is a cumulative one. Phenomenologically, causal efficacy is disclosed through the withness of the body as affective inheritance prior to reflective consciousness. Constitutively, if a past actuality genuinely enters into the becoming of a present actuality, then causal influence must make an internal difference rather than remaining an external relation. Explanatorily, panexperientialism allows one categoreal account of causal process to run continuously from physical events through living processes to conscious cognition, rather than requiring an ontologically unprecedented so-called “intrinsic character” to appear at some later threshold. Modally, purely structural descriptions leave the concrete occurrence of causal actuality unspecified.
As I’ve repeatedly conceded, none of this deductively proves panexperientialism. It is an abductive metaphysical proposal. Its warrant lies in its radically empirical adequacy to embodied causal efficacy, categoreal continuity across nature, avoidance of the blatant incoherence of the bifurcation of nature, and avoidance of an unexplained leap from vacuous actuality to experience.
Neither you nor physical science as such is required to address the dangling ontological questions. But as a speculative philosopher, the echoing sound of that dangling is always going to be what captures my attention. And agnosticism does not by itself establish that an empirically neutral causal core has been positively conceived. I continue to believe that the idea of such a core being isolable from experience literally makes no sense.
This is P again, now stronger. My D is not a complete ontology waiting for experience to be bolted onto it. It is target-relative overlap used for comparison, and the quoted safeguards above explicitly allow that overlap to fail.
Third recurrence: the position is stated correctly, then the old implication returns immediately
By September 10 Matt could state my position accurately:
“I accept that your present position is not that causal actuality is nonexperiential, but that you believe its intrinsic character remains open, and that your factorization is conditional rather than an assertion of nonexperience.”
Then, immediately afterward:
“To me, your analytical operation already abstracts from the only concrete character of causal efficacy we know of and then treats the abstraction as independently intelligible.”
yes, I think we’ve reached the point where the record can speak for itself. I trust readers to assess how it has all gone down since January (if they have the stamina to track it all!).
To reiterate, I accept that your present position is not that causal actuality is nonexperiential, but that you believe its intrinsic character remains open, and that your factorization is conditional rather than an assertion of nonexperience. My categorical objection, to reiterate, is that I do not think “causal actuality” can be held fixed as a metaphysically neutral common term while feeling is bracketed as a further possible characterization. Experience is not a predicate for reasons I’ve already argued. To me, your analytical operation already abstracts from the only concrete character of causal efficacy we know of and then treats the abstraction as independently intelligible. I understand that you think that factorization is epistemically legitimate. I don’t. We may just need to leave that disagreement where it is for now.
I also admit that what I’d call your legalistic approach has frustrated me, and that while I won’t say that justifies my behavior, I was hasty in some of my replies as a result. But I honestly don’t feel like you’ve exposed some major hole in my position. I’ve appreciated some of your incisiveness, for sure. i think it has helped surface more clarity at least in what I understand myself to be arguing.
The deeper problem is that we seem to inhabit sufficiently different philosophical language games that we are unusually prone to misunderstanding one another. My own recent misunderstanding of your conditional factorization was also colored by the fact that earlier this year you were defending a more explicitly emergentist position, in which experience arose under particular organizational conditions. Your position has since become more agnostic, and I should have tracked that shift more carefully.
At this point I’m not interested in continuing the audit dispute. Hopefully our actual disagreement is clear, if not to you than to most readers. You think the causal-process description can be analytically held open with respect to experientiality. I think that apparent neutrality already contains the abstraction I’m objecting to.
The first sentence repairs the explicit attribution. The second reintroduces P as an implication of my method.
By September 5 I had already clarified what “neutral” and “shared” meant:
“By ‘neutral,’ I mean I have not picked a winner, not neutral monism. By ‘open,’ I mean Whitehead could be right, a rival could be right, or the right ontology could be one we have not yet conceived.”
“the ‘shared causal core’ is just what multiple whole theories can agree on, not a complete ontology”
Matt, one brief clarification so my terminology doesn’t overrun what I am trying to say. By “neutral,” I mean I have not picked a winner, not neutral monism. By “open,” I mean Whitehead could be right, a rival could be right, or the right ontology could be one we have not yet conceived; ?X therefore means unresolved, not false.
Likewise, the “shared causal core” is just what multiple whole theories can agree on, not a complete ontology or something produced by subtracting experience from Whitehead. And when I say the question remains unanswered, I mean only this: what discriminates your X from the strongest live alternatives strongly enough that I should move from “Whitehead may be right” to “Whitehead is probably right”?
I’m spelling this out because once those distinctions are fixed, I think we are actually much closer than your comment makes us sound.
That clarification leaves Matt a serious objection: perhaps the overlap is unstable or too theory-laden to support factorization. It does not establish the stronger claim that my comparison already treats nonexperiential causality as independently intelligible.
Fourth recurrence: the suspension itself “slides” back into the withdrawn structure
After Words Made Flesh Again, Matt clarified further:
“I am not claiming that your ?X entails not-X, or that your suspension of judgment is itself a subtraction of experience.”
“My objection is to the factorization that makes ?X possible in the first place, since it asks us to treat a causal X as independently intelligible while suspending judgment about experience as though experience were a further optional predicate.”
I am not claiming that your ?X entails not-X, or that your suspension of judgment is itself a subtraction of experience. My objection is to the factorization that makes ?X possible in the first place, since it asks us to treat a causal X as independently intelligible while suspending judgment about experience as though experience were a further optional predicate. That factorization, rather than your agnosticism about it, is what I think commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
A few minutes later:
“My worry is that the suspension, once we see what it implies, slides right back into the predicate form anyway.”
To be clear, I don’t mean to say that the identity claim is still construing experience as a predicate. My worry is that the suspension, once we see what it implies, slides right back into the predicate form anyway.
At this point the recurrence is explicit. ?X is conceded not to mean not-X, yet the machinery that permits ?X is said to imply the old predicate structure anyway.
Two additional safeguards were already part of my September 1 reply:
“I am not asking whether Whiteheadian occasions can be stripped of experience while remaining Whiteheadian occasions.”
“Your constitutive identity claim is therefore one of the possibilities the comparison is meant to test.”
@Matthew David Segall A few explicit parts of my argument already block your reading here:
I repeatedly leave open that the factorization itself may fail, including the possibility that there is no phenomenally neutral causal carrier separable from feeling.
I explicitly state that analytical distinguishability does not imply ontological separability.
My framework says that if subtraction changes the target, stop subtracting and compare whole rival accounts instead.
I affirm concrete occurrence and real causal influence; what remains open is not whether anything happens, but whether concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling.
Your constitutive identity claim is therefore not excluded by my grammar; it is one of the possibilities the comparison is meant to test.
The only thing that can sound predicate-like is shorthand such as “what does feeling add?”, but my explicit methodological qualifications already rule out reading that as a commitment to detachable properties.
I am not reading your surviving criticism merely as a claim about my ontology. I distinguish the original ontological attribution, which you have now withdrawn, from your remaining categoreal objection that my question itself presupposes experience as a detachable predicate; the points above are directed specifically at that latter claim.
I accept your clarification that your thesis is not that causality has experience as an intrinsic characteristic, but that concrete causal actuality just is felt inheritance / experiential actualization. That corrects one compressed phrase of mine, not the structure of my argument.
Your own acknowledgement that a dispositional account of causality might render real influence intelligible without your character/occurrence distinction shows that the rival space I am asking us to compare is not excluded in principle.
This is also the same question my article originally asked.
So the crux remains very narrow: I am not asking whether Whiteheadian occasions can be stripped of experience while remaining Whiteheadian occasions.
I am asking what independently warrants Whitehead’s constitutive identification of concrete causal actuality with experiential feeling over serious whole-rival accounts that do not make that identification, and what evidence would make that identity claim lose.
And I finally put the missing step directly on the table:
“Please identify the premise in my actual argument that creates this alleged slide. Otherwise, the predicate structure comes from your reconstruction, not my suspension.”
@Matthew David Segall I agree that your identity claim does not construe experience as a predicate. But I had already said that. I explicitly distinguished your claim that causal actuality just is experiential feeling from the claim that causality merely has experience as a property. I also denied that my analytical distinction implies ontological separability and allowed that the factorization itself may fail.
If I mistakenly said otherwise, kindly point me to my comment, and I’ll be glad to revise it. My goal isn’t to misrepresent you, Matt. I wouldn’t do that to someone else after experiencing what it’s like to have it done to me so many times. My goal is to build the strongest form of your argument I can and further develop my epistemic evaluation framework in the process.
The new claim is that my suspension “slides” into predicate form. That imports the very reading I rejected at the level of what my reasoning allegedly implies. Suspending judgment about whether A and B are identical does not imply that either can exist independently or that one is a detachable property of the other. Your own Kant analogy shows that uncertainty about existence does not turn existence into a predicate.
But saying my suspension “slides” into predicate form asserts rather than demonstrates the same imported structure: withholding assent to A = B entails neither A without B nor B as a detachable property. This is the claim; my question isn’t what the claim is, but what warrants the claim?
Please identify the premise in my actual argument that creates this alleged slide. Otherwise, the predicate structure comes from your reconstruction, not my suspension.
You describe panexperientialism as fallible and defeasible by better rivals. What position may someone rationally occupy before its comparative warrant is sufficient if withholding assent already commits a categoreal error?
That is the narrow crux of the post-erratum dispute. “Slides into predicate form” is not the derivation. It is the name of the conclusion the derivation still owes us.
Now remove P. Matt’s positive philosophy remains: embodied causal efficacy, continuity, anti-bifurcation, anti-vacuous-actuality arguments, systematic unity, and the claim that Whitehead offers the best account of them. His challenge to D also remains. What disappears is the supposed refutation of my position by showing that I add experience to an independently intelligible nonexperiential remainder. I do not posit that remainder, and I do not require it to survive comparison.
The misrepresentation is therefore load-bearing in the rebuttal aimed at me, but not in Matt’s positive case for Whitehead. Remove it, and the better dispute appears.
Matt’s own scholarship already frames Whitehead as a wager to be compared
That better dispute is not hostile to Matt’s published work. It is much closer to the epistemic grammar he has used himself.
In his 2017 peer-reviewed paper Retrieving Realism: A Whiteheadian Wager, Matt calls the Whiteheadian move:
“a bold and radical ontological wager that might just be worth the risk.” (Segall, 2017)
In his 2020 peer-reviewed The Varieties of Physicalist Ontology, while arguing that panpsychism is superior to eliminativism, epiphenomenalism, emergentism, and standard physicalism, he says embodied feelings:
“provide a clue as to the functioning of energy in the rest of Nature.” (Segall, 2020)
Wager. Clue. Comparative superiority. Those are appropriate terms for speculative metaphysics. They also make comparative questioning legitimate. A clue can be strong without determining its own radius of validity. A wager can lead without turning the race itself into a category mistake.
Matt’s current objection has an ancestor in that scholarship: he has long criticized starting from “blind causality” and then trying to add consciousness later.
Great!
But my position does not begin from blind causality. It begins with substantial process-relational commitments, gives Whitehead positive evidential weight, allows the factorization to fail, and permits Whitehead’s constitutive identity to win. Extending the older critique from not-X to unresolved universal X is the additional step that still needs a bridge, yet to be provided.
No major hole? Five load-bearing gaps in the universal case
A “gap” here means neither “Whitehead is incoherent within Whitehead’s system” nor “Matt has no evidence.” It means a missing argumentative bridge or discriminator that matters to the strength or scope of the conclusion.
1. Scope and transport: how does “here” become “everywhere”?
Grant Matt’s phenomenology. Some causal transactions are encountered from within as felt inheritance, pressure, fatigue, warmth, affect, and bodily transition. His warmth example makes the point vividly:
“Consider warmth. Physics can describe temperature, energy transfer, and molecular distributions with impressive precision.”
Nathan, By my lights, the argument I’ve been making—that experience is not a predicate that can be added to or subtracted from an otherwise fully specifiable causal actuality—applies to your conditional factorization just as well as it did to my earlier mischaracterization that collapsed the conditional. In fact I think it applies in an even more interesting way, which I should thank you for since it helps me understand my own position better. I have clarified this in several subsequent notes, and the original post links to your original post and reply. I think this is sufficient given that, conditional or not, the correction does not blunt the force of my argument. This is how I read it, at least. You’re free to disagree, but it may be helpful to get clearer on the nature of the disagreement.
I’ll let Will argue his own case. For my part, as I hope you know, I am not arguing from a human unitive experience to the claim that all causal events possess an experiential property. Mine is decidedly not an argument from the phenomenology of consciousness to the physicality of causation. That would indeed require the sort of bridge you are demanding. My position continues to be that your comparative factorization of a supposedly neutral account of causal process commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, since it misconstrues concrete experience as though it were an additional character or predicate that may or may not be added to a model of causal relation that is already too abstract.
On the Whiteheadian view I am trying to reconstruct, experience is primarily prehensional rather than intentional (as in phenomenological accounts of consciousness). Consciousness is a very late achievement occurring only in very rare concrescences. Prehension refers to the concrete inheritance of the past into a new becoming actuality. Physics gives us extraordinarily powerful abstractions of dynamical relations but cannot ultimately tell us why time has a direction. It can, of course, model heat flows statistically, but this presupposes the extraordinarily low-entropy condition of the early universe rather than explaining it, much less telling us what the concrete core of the causal relations it describes amounts to.
My move from bodily feeling to panexperientialism is, again, abductive, not deductive. There is nothing in the matter of proof here. There is only comparative success to be judged by metaphilosophical criteria including logical consistency and coherence, and empirical adequacy and applicability. I prefer the panexperiential, prehensional approach because it integrates causal efficacy, temporal becoming, and conscious and non-conscious experience within one comprehensive categoreal scheme rather than requiring experience to emerge from something wholly alien to it (I’m not saying that is your view!). A rival view that explained the relation between physical and psychical process more coherently and adequately would certainly have my attention. Thus far I have only seen rival views that make the emergence of conscious experience from a fundamentally non-experiential nature a brute fact, with little in the way of a theoretical account of how the miracle is to be accomplished.
I can grant as a matter of epistemic analysis that ?X can be logically distinguished from not-X. My onto-epistemic objection is that the factorization already treats experience as though it were a predicate of an independently intelligible X, and then presents that abstraction as the neutral starting point. That is precisely what I reject. You ask what justifies adding experience to causality. I am asking whether there is any intelligible sense to be made of concrete causality once experience, in Whitehead’s prehensional sense, has been subtracted.
Consider warmth. Physics can describe temperature, energy transfer, and molecular distributions with impressive precision. But our concrete encounter with warmth is not first with an externally measurable property. It is a thermal transaction in which our body enters into felt relation with its environment. The quantitative description is not false, but is an abstraction from that concrete event. Molecular motion is not an explanation of warmth as experienced. The physical description deliberately abstracts from the felt character of the causal transaction.
To be perfectly clear, this does not by itself prove panexperientialism. There is no proof in metaphysics. Rather, I share the example to show why I resist treating the physical abstraction as though it were already a complete concrete ontology to which experience must subsequently be added as an optional predicate. What physics measures and models mathematically is already an abstraction from causal participation as concretely encountered in bodily feeling. Whitehead’s speculative move is then to generalize this causal participation into the category of prehension. Asking whether experience should subsequently be added back to the abstract description mistakes the abstraction for the concrete reality from which it was derived.
Yes. A molecular description of a thermal interaction is not identical to the phenomenal character of feeling warm. That establishes that some causal transactions involving conscious organisms possess phenomenal character not exhausted by a third-person description. Matt is pretending like he is disagreeing with me while agreeing with me.
But that entire datum is already inside D + ?X. My view predicts no less warmth, feeling, embodiment, or causal efficacy in the cases under discussion than Matt’s does. The local evidence therefore cannot by itself discriminate universal X from D + ?X, because both contain it. The disagreement begins with the transport of that experiential identity to cases where it has not independently been established.
It does not yet tell us how far that feature travels. Experientiality might be universal, or it might track living organization, recursive integration, some physical parameter, some class of systems, or a condition we have not identified. A merely geographical boundary would be arbitrary unless a mechanism explained it, but mechanism-bound alternatives are not “Earth magic.” The relevant question is what invariant carries experientiality across organism → biosphere → planet → solar system → galaxy → universe.
Consider two worlds. In World A, every concrete causal occurrence is intrinsically experiential. In World B, only some highly organized systems are experiential, while every piece of local human phenomenology Matt appeals to is identical. If our current embodied evidence is the same in both worlds, that evidence alone does not discriminate universal from restricted scope. The same applies to unitive experience: the episode may genuinely lack a felt self-world boundary, the later report may faithfully describe that phenomenology, and the universal ontology can still be an additional interpretation. Replication of an experience is not replication of its metaphysics.
The wide regularity of physics transports D very far: causal structure, energy transfer, dependence, regularity. To transport X with it, the D→X mapping needs its own warrant. Otherwise the universality of the carrier is silently doing evidential work for the disputed interpretation.
2. Semantic transport: what exactly survives the scale change?
Whiteheadian vocabulary deliberately extends terms such as feeling, prehension, valuation, inheritance, and mattering far below human consciousness. That can be illuminating, but it creates a construct-validity fork.
If “feeling” is thinned until it means causal reception, sensitivity to prior conditions, or internally consequential transition, then many nonpanexperiential rivals can grant the phenomenon and the term stops discriminating X. If “feeling” retains genuinely experiential or phenomenal content, then its universal transport is substantive and requires the bridge under dispute.
Thin enough to travel easily, the term risks collapsing into shared structure. Thick enough to establish panexperientialism, it becomes harder to transport. The framework therefore needs a principled invariant telling us what remains experiential across the scale change rather than merely causal, receptive, or relational. This also exposes an equivocation risk in the word “subtraction.” If “experience” means the lived or phenomenal experience actually evidenced in organisms like us, I subtract none of it. If “experience” means the Whiteheadian category already attributed to every causal actuality in the universe, then saying that I “subtract experience” simply assumes the universal claim under dispute.
3. Rival discrimination: a clue is not yet a winner
Matt’s positive case has real evidential content. The problem is comparative specificity. His 2020 paper argues against a substantial comparison class and gives Whitehead advantages over eliminativism, epiphenomenalism, emergentism, standard physicalism, and some substance-property forms of panpsychism. That matters.
That comparison also has to target my actual position. D + ?X already contains the experiential explananda. A rival does not need to begin from an experience-free world and somehow manufacture experience from nothing; it needs a whole ontology capable of accounting for the same embodied phenomena without making universal experiential identity primitive. Arguments that defeat eliminativism, epiphenomenalism, or a picture of wholly inert “dead matter” therefore do not automatically discriminate against D + ?X.
But the surviving rival space is wider: nonvacuous powers ontologies, nonexperiential process realism, neutral-event views, Russellian and panprotopsychist strategies, organizational or strong-emergence accounts, and alternatives not yet well formulated. Contemporary panpsychist research itself remains divided among constitutive, emergent, panprotopsychist, phenomenal-powers, cosmopsychist, and monadic strategies, with the combination/constitution problem still disputed. (SEP, Panpsychism)
The discriminator is therefore not “can X explain something?” It can. The question is which important success becomes substantially less available to the strongest rival, or which liability becomes substantially more severe for the rival than for X?
4. Theory-internal identity is not theory selection
Matt states one part of his current case clearly:
“My move from bodily feeling to panexperientialism is, again, abductive, not deductive.”
He also makes the stronger onto-epistemic objection:
“My onto-epistemic objection is that the factorization already treats experience as though it were a predicate of an independently intelligible X…”
Nathan, By my lights, the argument I’ve been making—that experience is not a predicate that can be added to or subtracted from an otherwise fully specifiable causal actuality—applies to your conditional factorization just as well as it did to my earlier mischaracterization that collapsed the conditional. In fact I think it applies in an even more interesting way, which I should thank you for since it helps me understand my own position better. I have clarified this in several subsequent notes, and the original post links to your original post and reply. I think this is sufficient given that, conditional or not, the correction does not blunt the force of my argument. This is how I read it, at least. You’re free to disagree, but it may be helpful to get clearer on the nature of the disagreement.
I’ll let Will argue his own case. For my part, as I hope you know, I am not arguing from a human unitive experience to the claim that all causal events possess an experiential property. Mine is decidedly not an argument from the phenomenology of consciousness to the physicality of causation. That would indeed require the sort of bridge you are demanding. My position continues to be that your comparative factorization of a supposedly neutral account of causal process commits the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, since it misconstrues concrete experience as though it were an additional character or predicate that may or may not be added to a model of causal relation that is already too abstract.
On the Whiteheadian view I am trying to reconstruct, experience is primarily prehensional rather than intentional (as in phenomenological accounts of consciousness). Consciousness is a very late achievement occurring only in very rare concrescences. Prehension refers to the concrete inheritance of the past into a new becoming actuality. Physics gives us extraordinarily powerful abstractions of dynamical relations but cannot ultimately tell us why time has a direction. It can, of course, model heat flows statistically, but this presupposes the extraordinarily low-entropy condition of the early universe rather than explaining it, much less telling us what the concrete core of the causal relations it describes amounts to.
My move from bodily feeling to panexperientialism is, again, abductive, not deductive. There is nothing in the matter of proof here. There is only comparative success to be judged by metaphilosophical criteria including logical consistency and coherence, and empirical adequacy and applicability. I prefer the panexperiential, prehensional approach because it integrates causal efficacy, temporal becoming, and conscious and non-conscious experience within one comprehensive categoreal scheme rather than requiring experience to emerge from something wholly alien to it (I’m not saying that is your view!). A rival view that explained the relation between physical and psychical process more coherently and adequately would certainly have my attention. Thus far I have only seen rival views that make the emergence of conscious experience from a fundamentally non-experiential nature a brute fact, with little in the way of a theoretical account of how the miracle is to be accomplished.
I can grant as a matter of epistemic analysis that ?X can be logically distinguished from not-X. My onto-epistemic objection is that the factorization already treats experience as though it were a predicate of an independently intelligible X, and then presents that abstraction as the neutral starting point. That is precisely what I reject. You ask what justifies adding experience to causality. I am asking whether there is any intelligible sense to be made of concrete causality once experience, in Whitehead’s prehensional sense, has been subtracted.
Consider warmth. Physics can describe temperature, energy transfer, and molecular distributions with impressive precision. But our concrete encounter with warmth is not first with an externally measurable property. It is a thermal transaction in which our body enters into felt relation with its environment. The quantitative description is not false, but is an abstraction from that concrete event. Molecular motion is not an explanation of warmth as experienced. The physical description deliberately abstracts from the felt character of the causal transaction.
To be perfectly clear, this does not by itself prove panexperientialism. There is no proof in metaphysics. Rather, I share the example to show why I resist treating the physical abstraction as though it were already a complete concrete ontology to which experience must subsequently be added as an optional predicate. What physics measures and models mathematically is already an abstraction from causal participation as concretely encountered in bodily feeling. Whitehead’s speculative move is then to generalize this causal participation into the category of prehension. Asking whether experience should subsequently be added back to the abstract description mistakes the abstraction for the concrete reality from which it was derived.
Those are different burdens. Inside mature Whitehead, an actual occasion is experiential. Strip experiential prehension out and you have changed the theory’s object. I grant that.
But the theory-selection question is different: why should concrete actuality itself be modeled as Whiteheadian actual occasions rather than through another whole ontology? A theory can make an identity constitutive inside its own scheme without thereby establishing that rival schemes are malformed. If the factorization distorts Whitehead, abandon it and compare wholes. That concession does not select Whitehead by itself.
This is where X risks becoming both one horse in the race and the ground beneath the racetrack. A leading hypothesis can be the best runner. A condition for intelligible comparison is a much stronger claim. If a theory can answer rival comparison by declaring that any comparison leaving its signature identity open has already “subtracted” that identity, then every ontology can immunize itself in the same way. That is the reductio at the theory-selection level. Convenient horse.
5. Revision conditions: what would make “all” lose?
Matt’s case is abductive. Good. Abduction does not need a single Popperian kill-shot, but it does need conditions under which confidence would fall. Would a successful nonexperiential process account of causal inheritance matter? A rival matching Whitehead’s unification without universal feeling? Failure to identify a cross-scale invariant linking known phenomenality to fundamental processes? Mounting costs from combination or constitution? Some future empirical dissociation?
The answer can be plural. What matters is that the programme contains revision conditions, not only assimilation rules. This becomes especially important when continued disagreement can itself be redescribed as a limitation of the critic’s mode of access. I return to that below.
These five gaps share one architecture. Embodied experience supplies the positive exemplar; Whiteheadian categories generalize its structure outward; then the generalized identity can start determining what counts as an adequate account of causation. The safeguard is to keep the levels separate: local evidence → hypothesis → theoretical integration → rival comparison → scope assignment → revision.
Will Skelly’s challenge improves the comparison
My exchange with Will Skelly should be useful to all of us, I think, because, once one initial misunderstanding was removed, he pressed on the real vulnerability in my notation rather than replaying P. His input is genuinely useful, and I appreciate him taking the time to try to understand my argument and engage with it in good faith. I hope our interactions can help others who are reading this understand some of these issues more clearly.
Will wrote:
“I have straw-manned you with the unitive experience argument that’s my bad.”
“I don’t claim that your factorization of D + ?X requires causal actuality to be intelligible apart from felt inheritance. It doesn’t necessarily have to.”
Okay, I think I get your point. I have straw-manned you with the unitive experience argument that’s my bad. I misread what you were arguing against. I think I’ve messed up the order, in the sense that the phenomenology of unitive experiences doesn’t necessarily entail an ontology, but that to me it is a phenomenon that any theory should be able to account for. So we’re clear on that point I hope, I won’t keep pushing it because I know where it fits now.
Also, so that I don’t misrepresent my work, I used Claude’s Fable 5 to help me understand your point, help me formulate my thoughts, correct misattributions that I was making in previous drafts of this post, and research + explain concepts I didn’t understand fully.
Just for claification of the debate at large, I want to show that X is a rational position to hold, and what differentiates it from alternatives you keep open. Since, as you’ve claimed, the same observable pattern fits multiple ontologies, this can’t be settled by observation. Coherence, adequacy, applicability, consistency are all reasons why we could choose any of the alternatives or suspend judgement, and are the only sorts of reasons we have access to when differentiating between them.
I think some of the misunderstanding really comes down to what you mean by D. You previously have stated:
“Let D represent commitments shared by multiple rival accounts: concrete processes occur, inherit conditions, affect one another, integrate differences, respond, and produce novelty. Let X represent your further identity claim that concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance. My position is D + ?X. I neither affirm nor deny X.” Can you clarify D further for me?
The implication of the factorization is that all the ?X alternatives you keep open: “emergent, biologically dependent, organizationally thresholded, scale-relative, relational, limited to some processes, grounded in neutral or dispositional actuality, or dependent on presently unknown structures, mechanisms or categories” share in the same D. I don’t claim that your factorization of D +?X requires causal actuality to be intelligible apart from felt inheritance. It doesn’t necessarily have to. Causal actuality in D could mean felt inheritance in X, as you’ve stated before. It is one option ?X leaves open. But, for "is causal actuality identical to felt inheritance?" to be a question you posed, you have to had taken causal actuality as described in D to be analytically distinguishable from felt inheritance.
Just to highlight this point, you’ve previously said that "If 'causal occurrence' means felt experience, the conclusion follows by definition." This is true, and because you pose the factorization as D + ?X, I understand this to imply you mean that “inherit conditions, affect one another” and “felt inheritance”, are analytically distinguishable, not that they refer to different things. You also have identified that the distinction between D and X may fail, i.e. that their analytical distinguishabillity is not certain. This makes “inherit conditions”, and “affect on another” important terms to explicate. If I’m going to provide reasons as to why I believe causal actuality is felt inheritance, then I need to know what you think the analytical distinction between them is. So what do “affect one another” and “inherit conditions” mean in D such that all alternatives share them?
That matters logically and interpretively: a defender of X can understand ?X without reading it as not-X or as the removal of evidenced experience. Will’s own acceptance of X therefore supplies a useful independent check on the notation: the openness marker need not encode the subtraction Matt keeps finding in it. Will then asked the better question:
“Can you clarify D further for me?”
That reaches the load-bearing beam. D cannot secretly be a thin metaphysics hiding beneath the notation. The cleaner formulation is:
D is the target-relevant overlap in commitments, constraints, phenomena, and explanatory obligations that rival whole theories preserve. It is the shared part of the scorecard, not the clay out of which every rival is made.
If terms such as inheritance, causation, relation, or novelty shift so radically across rivals that no stable target remains, D fractures. Then factorization stops and whole-rival comparison begins. That is a real criticism of my method, and my framework already contains the update it would require.
Will also found an ambiguity in my own language. I had called the local-to-universal limit an “ontological boundary.” He reasonably heard a boundary in reality where I meant a boundary on evidential reach. The better phrase is local-to-universal evidential boundary. A unitive experience may contain no felt self-world boundary while the inference drawn from it still has a scope.
There is one point in Will’s revised position where I still push back. He wrote:
“this can’t be settled by observation.”
Okay, I think I get your point. I have straw-manned you with the unitive experience argument that’s my bad. I misread what you were arguing against. I think I’ve messed up the order, in the sense that the phenomenology of unitive experiences doesn’t necessarily entail an ontology, but that to me it is a phenomenon that any theory should be able to account for. So we’re clear on that point I hope, I won’t keep pushing it because I know where it fits now.
Also, so that I don’t misrepresent my work, I used Claude’s Fable 5 to help me understand your point, help me formulate my thoughts, correct misattributions that I was making in previous drafts of this post, and research + explain concepts I didn’t understand fully.
Just for claification of the debate at large, I want to show that X is a rational position to hold, and what differentiates it from alternatives you keep open. Since, as you’ve claimed, the same observable pattern fits multiple ontologies, this can’t be settled by observation. Coherence, adequacy, applicability, consistency are all reasons why we could choose any of the alternatives or suspend judgement, and are the only sorts of reasons we have access to when differentiating between them.
I think some of the misunderstanding really comes down to what you mean by D. You previously have stated:
“Let D represent commitments shared by multiple rival accounts: concrete processes occur, inherit conditions, affect one another, integrate differences, respond, and produce novelty. Let X represent your further identity claim that concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance. My position is D + ?X. I neither affirm nor deny X.” Can you clarify D further for me?
The implication of the factorization is that all the ?X alternatives you keep open: “emergent, biologically dependent, organizationally thresholded, scale-relative, relational, limited to some processes, grounded in neutral or dispositional actuality, or dependent on presently unknown structures, mechanisms or categories” share in the same D. I don’t claim that your factorization of D +?X requires causal actuality to be intelligible apart from felt inheritance. It doesn’t necessarily have to. Causal actuality in D could mean felt inheritance in X, as you’ve stated before. It is one option ?X leaves open. But, for "is causal actuality identical to felt inheritance?" to be a question you posed, you have to had taken causal actuality as described in D to be analytically distinguishable from felt inheritance.
Just to highlight this point, you’ve previously said that "If 'causal occurrence' means felt experience, the conclusion follows by definition." This is true, and because you pose the factorization as D + ?X, I understand this to imply you mean that “inherit conditions, affect one another” and “felt inheritance”, are analytically distinguishable, not that they refer to different things. You also have identified that the distinction between D and X may fail, i.e. that their analytical distinguishabillity is not certain. This makes “inherit conditions”, and “affect on another” important terms to explicate. If I’m going to provide reasons as to why I believe causal actuality is felt inheritance, then I need to know what you think the analytical distinction between them is. So what do “affect one another” and “inherit conditions” mean in D such that all alternatives share them?
I would replace can’t with has not yet. Present underdetermination is not eternal underdetermination. Bridge principles, interventions, cross-scale constraints, novel retrodictions, computational consequences, consciousness markers, or methods we have not invented could eventually separate currently coextensive ontologies. If two theories are genuinely indistinguishable under every possible observation and intervention, that itself needs argument.
The three positions are now much cleaner. Will treats ?X as coherent while finding X attractive and asks whether D is stable enough to compare. Matt argues that the factorization permitting ?X already abstracts concrete experience improperly. I treat factorization as provisional bookkeeping and switch to whole rivals when the shared target fails.
The notation may sometimes sound like it escaped from a graduate seminar carrying a wrench, but the conversational question is simple: what do the rivals really share, what extra claim does Whitehead make, and what changes if it is true? Now there is something worth arguing about.
When the argument starts explaining the questioner and how that functions regardless of intent
The recurrent misrepresentation and the later personal diagnoses are related, but they are not the same thing. The first supplies a disputed commitment to my argument. The second increasingly explains me: my prose, posture, method, cognitive mode, or supposed preference for ignorance.
On September 4 Matt wrote:
“it usually takes only a sentence or two to recognize the stilted prose of a machine. Indeed, the title was already a giveaway…”
“things have now gone rather far off the rails. I admit that I have lost my patience. Nathan’s engagement with my work has been polemical from the get go…”
“his present posture of being uninterested in debate is difficult to reconcile with the record.”
“Readers can therefore assess both the argument and its provenance without having to conduct a séance to locate the author.”
An Audit of the Audits: What I Said, What Nathan Says I Said, and the Difference
Back in January, someone shared a blog post with me that was critically engaging with my work, titled “When No Scientific Evidence Becomes an Unintentional Shield.”
I find LLMs can serve as useful aids and do not intend any wholesale rejection of their use in scholarly work—nor, certainly, their use by those with disabilities. But it usually takes only a sentence or two to recognize the stilted prose of a machine. Indeed, the title was already a giveaway (as, admittedly, is my own machine-generated title above 😂—see below).
I have since had many exchanges with the human co-author, Nathan. We seemed for a while to be making some progress, but things have now gone rather far off the rails. I admit that I have lost my patience. Nathan’s engagement with my work has been polemical from the get go—“shield,” motte-and-bailey, epistemic permission slip, and comparisons with intelligent design—so his present posture of being uninterested in debate is difficult to reconcile with the record.
What follows is an audit in the style he has frequently provided. He says I have misrepresented him. I want to set the record straight about who has been misrepresenting whom—and who, after being corrected, has failed to correct the record.
Yes, I enlisted an LLM to help produce this audit. More specifically, I asked ChatGPT 5.6 Sol to review the articles and Notes Nathan and I have exchanged, identify claims Nathan either directly attributed to me or unmistakably aimed at positions I have publicly defended, and compare those claims with the documentary record. I read and approved the resulting text and edited portions by hand. Readers can therefore assess both the argument and its provenance without having to conduct a séance to locate the author.
Here is a PDF of my Audit of the Audits: https://matthewsegall.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/an-audit-of-the-audits.pdf
Those may describe Matt’s frustration. They do not derive P, discriminate X from its rivals, or tell us whether the original attribution was accurate.
By September 10 he added:
“I also admit that what I’d call your legalistic approach has frustrated me…”
yes, I think we’ve reached the point where the record can speak for itself. I trust readers to assess how it has all gone down since January (if they have the stamina to track it all!).
To reiterate, I accept that your present position is not that causal actuality is nonexperiential, but that you believe its intrinsic character remains open, and that your factorization is conditional rather than an assertion of nonexperience. My categorical objection, to reiterate, is that I do not think “causal actuality” can be held fixed as a metaphysically neutral common term while feeling is bracketed as a further possible characterization. Experience is not a predicate for reasons I’ve already argued. To me, your analytical operation already abstracts from the only concrete character of causal efficacy we know of and then treats the abstraction as independently intelligible. I understand that you think that factorization is epistemically legitimate. I don’t. We may just need to leave that disagreement where it is for now.
I also admit that what I’d call your legalistic approach has frustrated me, and that while I won’t say that justifies my behavior, I was hasty in some of my replies as a result. But I honestly don’t feel like you’ve exposed some major hole in my position. I’ve appreciated some of your incisiveness, for sure. i think it has helped surface more clarity at least in what I understand myself to be arguing.
The deeper problem is that we seem to inhabit sufficiently different philosophical language games that we are unusually prone to misunderstanding one another. My own recent misunderstanding of your conditional factorization was also colored by the fact that earlier this year you were defending a more explicitly emergentist position, in which experience arose under particular organizational conditions. Your position has since become more agnostic, and I should have tracked that shift more carefully.
At this point I’m not interested in continuing the audit dispute. Hopefully our actual disagreement is clear, if not to you than to most readers. You think the causal-process description can be analytically held open with respect to experientiality. I think that apparent neutrality already contains the abstraction I’m objecting to.
And later:
“if we remain in the intellectual mode, we are constitutively blind to the embodied evidence I am trying to gesture toward in my abductive arguments for panexperientialism.”
Well put, Will. I tried to spell something similar out in an earlier post briefly explicating Whitehead’s theory of perception (presentational immediacy and causal efficacy, with the former being what modern philosophers tend to focus on, while often entirely overlooking the latter). In Bergson’s related sense, “intellect” abstractly spatializes the world, while “intuition” grasps the deeper durée at the heart of actual processes. I think you are absolutely right that, if we remain in the intellectual mode, we are constitutively blind to the embodied evidence I am trying to gesture toward in my abductive arguments for panexperientialism.
But I had already framed my objection this way:
“direct bodily acquaintance with causation does not by itself settle the universal ontology of causation.”
“I am not asking for proof. I am asking what makes that interpretation win rather than merely what makes it intelligible.”
@Matthew David Segall, I think your reply broadens my claim again. I did not cite Anjum and Mumford as anti-Whiteheadians, nor claim they establish that actuality is nonexperiential; my much narrower point was that they provide a developed, genuinely processual and non-Humean account of real causal efficacy without making your further identity claim that concrete causal actuality just is felt inheritance. Their account explicitly treats causation as a “unified process,” and the very volume you cite deliberately distinguishes its naturalistic process metaphysics from Whitehead’s panpsychist foundations.
The Mørch point is narrower too. I did not say she argues against panpsychism. I said the causation-to-experience connection still requires an argument. Saying “she just goes ahead and makes the argument” actually leaves that point intact: she supplies substantive premises intended to establish the connection, and Dondoni, while developing the panpsychist case sympathetically, calls her Mental Causation premise the “most central (and controversial)” premise of the argument.
Nor do I think your final choice, “a primitive left blank” versus “a primitive we directly feel from within,” has been established as exhaustive. My alternative is not an empty primitive, but a primitive whose intrinsic nature we do not yet know. Pelczar explicitly argues that we can attribute experience-causing powers “without construing the powers as experiences,” while Nicholson and Dupré develop a positive process ontology that explicitly distances itself from Whiteheadian panpsychism. These rivals may ultimately fail, but they cannot simply be redescribed as a blank without argument.
And direct bodily acquaintance with causation does not by itself settle the universal ontology of causation. It may give us epistemic access to causal power from within our own embodied case; the further inference that causal actuality everywhere therefore just is felt or prehensional actuality is exactly the bridge Mørch argues for and that I am asking us to evaluate.
So I think we are finally very close to the real crux: I already agree with much of the processual picture you and these authors defend. The remaining question is still the one I originally asked: what differentially warrants the universal identity claim that concrete causal actuality just is felt inheritance over serious processual rivals that affirm real causation, directedness, and process without making that identification? I am not asking for proof. I am asking what makes that interpretation win rather than merely what makes it intelligible.
And I answered the “constitutively blind” move directly:
“That converts an unanswered request for discrimination into a deficiency in the questioner and shifts the burden from your universal claim to my mode of consciousness.”
@Matthew David Segall, your response to Will here seems extremely odd to me and is problematicly misrepresenting my position as much as ever. Earlier that same day, you explicitly acknowledged my position: real processes occur and affect one another, but I neither affirm nor deny your further identity claim that every causal occurrence is just experiential feeling.
Why, then, did you uncritically endorse Will’s reply without correcting its recasting of my uncertainty as a failure to become sufficiently embodied as if my uncertainty was instead rejection? Suspending judgment means I do not yet know whether the claim is true, so rebutting its rejection answers a position I do not hold.
Your repeated return to your so-called categoreal argument does not answer this dispute; instead, it repeats the same error. It assumes Whitehead’s identity of concrete actuality with experiential feeling to redescribe my suspension as subtraction or denial, then treats the consequences of that redescription as support for the same identity claim. But those consequences only follow from your asserted reconstruction, and not my actual position.
Unless you independently establish that premise against serious rivals, the move is circular and question-begging. Whitehead’s internal coherence within his own system does not show that my agnosticism entails not-X, justify attributing not-X to me, or relieve you of correcting the readers who received that misrepresentation.
That move is circular, question-begging, and straw-manning: it assumes the disputed identity to recast my suspension as subtraction, then treats the consequences of that invented subtraction as support for the identity.
Your response to Will implicitly reintroduces that argument by treating my suspension as an abstraction produced by the “intellectual mode,” rather than establishing that it entails subtracting or denying experience.
I have never denied embodied causal efficacy or treated experience as unreal.
I have repeatedly granted the phenomenology and asked what carries evidence from particular human experience to every causal occurrence, what distinguishes your panexperiential interpretation from serious rivals, and what could show it mistaken.
Will answers as though my suspension results from excessive intellectualization; you intensify that substitution of my actual stated position by saying anyone remaining in the “intellectual mode” is “constitutively blind” to the evidence.
This also poisons the well by preclassifying disagreement as evidence of the critic’s deficient mode of access rather than a possible defect in your inference.
That converts an unanswered request for discrimination into a deficiency in the questioner and shifts the burden from your universal claim to my mode of consciousness.
This is one of the primary mechanisms of dogmatism: agreement counts as insight, while disagreement is recast as blindness, impurity, or failed initiation. Once criticism becomes evidence that the critic is defective, the belief becomes self-sealing, escaping comparison with rivals and any condition under which it could be shown mistaken.
And more concerningly, why did you reinforce this point after months of corrections instead of clarifying that I suspend judgment rather than reject Whitehead? Knowing the personal harm this risks for me?
I have asked this before, and you have yet to do: if you continue engaging my argument, meet the minimum conditions of good-faith disagreement by representing the position I actually hold and answering the evidential questions it raises, rather than explaining why someone holding another position that I don’t hold cannot see what you see.
By framing my request for accuracy about my own words, and my documentation of your misrepresentations of my argument, as a “legalistic tribunal” when my intent was to put my words side by side with yours to help you see how you are misrepresenting me, while framing my continued uncertainty as “constitutive blindness” produced by the “intellectual mode,” you ironically put me personally and my method and capacity to perceive on trial instead of examining my questions and sticking to the facts and logic presented.
That obstructs truth-seeking by treating demands for evidence as procedural excess and disagreement as evidence of personal deficiency.
The performative contradiction borders on farce: you denounce the tribunal while appointing yourself judge of my intellectual fitness. By that method, every dogma wins because unanswered objections become symptoms and the questioner becomes the disease.
This is a thinly veiled circumstantial ad hominem and an attempt to poison the well: by insinuating defects in my character and method, you invite readers (and yourself) to dismiss my argument without identifying any defect in its evidence or reasoning.
[Editorial correction, November 9, 2026: The original September 11 comment quoted an aphorism incorrectly attributed to Richard Feynman. This archived copy substitutes a documented remark from his 1981 BBC interview.] “I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing anything than to have answers which might be wrong.” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1981). Attribution research. That certainly rings true here, does it not?
And @Will Skelly, I am curious, did your like of Matt’s comment indicate agreement with Matt’s claim that my suspension of judgment (not rejection) on Matt’s universal claims reflects a “constitutive blindness” to embodied evidence, even though I repeatedly grant that evidence and ask only what warrants universalizing its panexperiential interpretation beyond the specific local experiential case we know about?
That is the methodological concern. I had granted the embodied datum. The remaining question concerned its scope. If the answer to “what licenses all?” becomes “perhaps your intellectual mode cannot access the evidence,” a question about evidential jurisdiction has been converted into a diagnosis of the questioner.
Words Made Flesh Again: openness becomes a character trait
There is an unusually sharp irony here. In Words Made Flesh Again, Matthew warns against mistaking abstraction for concrete reality and explicitly insists that “distinction is not division.” Yet when he turns to my position, he describes me as someone who “prefers to profess ignorance” precisely where his own Whiteheadian interpretation begins, while omitting the safeguards that prevent my analytical distinction from becoming the exact ontological division he criticizes:
I explicitly deny that distinguishability entails separability, allow the factorization itself to fail, and require whole-rival comparison whenever subtraction changes the target.
So the article’s own methodological warning applies directly to its treatment of my argument: an abstraction Matt attributes to my method is substituted for the method I actually stated, and then that abstraction is criticized as though it were my position.
Matt later wrote:
“A recent sparring partner Sweet Rationalism (Nathan) is content to leave the concrete content of causal relation an open question. I respect his epistemic modesty. I am not as modest. I want to know nature naked. I have no proof of the prehensions of particles. But the place where Nathan prefers to profess ignorance is precisely where my philosophical curiosity ignites.”
Timothy Jackson sent me Edwin Muir’s poem “The Incarnate One” earlier tonight.
Weeks earlier I had said:
“what independently warrants Whitehead’s constitutive identification of concrete causal actuality with experiential feeling over serious whole-rival accounts that do not make that identification, and what evidence would make that identity claim lose.”
@Matthew David Segall A few explicit parts of my argument already block your reading here:
I repeatedly leave open that the factorization itself may fail, including the possibility that there is no phenomenally neutral causal carrier separable from feeling.
I explicitly state that analytical distinguishability does not imply ontological separability.
My framework says that if subtraction changes the target, stop subtracting and compare whole rival accounts instead.
I affirm concrete occurrence and real causal influence; what remains open is not whether anything happens, but whether concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling.
Your constitutive identity claim is therefore not excluded by my grammar; it is one of the possibilities the comparison is meant to test.
The only thing that can sound predicate-like is shorthand such as “what does feeling add?”, but my explicit methodological qualifications already rule out reading that as a commitment to detachable properties.
I am not reading your surviving criticism merely as a claim about my ontology. I distinguish the original ontological attribution, which you have now withdrawn, from your remaining categoreal objection that my question itself presupposes experience as a detachable predicate; the points above are directed specifically at that latter claim.
I accept your clarification that your thesis is not that causality has experience as an intrinsic characteristic, but that concrete causal actuality just is felt inheritance / experiential actualization. That corrects one compressed phrase of mine, not the structure of my argument.
Your own acknowledgement that a dispositional account of causality might render real influence intelligible without your character/occurrence distinction shows that the rival space I am asking us to compare is not excluded in principle.
This is also the same question my article originally asked.
So the crux remains very narrow: I am not asking whether Whiteheadian occasions can be stripped of experience while remaining Whiteheadian occasions.
I am asking what independently warrants Whitehead’s constitutive identification of concrete causal actuality with experiential feeling over serious whole-rival accounts that do not make that identification, and what evidence would make that identity claim lose.
That is a request for a path out of uncertainty, not a preference for ignorance. “Prefers to profess ignorance” therefore adds a motivational diagnosis that can’t be derived from my actual words where I had supplied an evidential reason. Stronger commitment gets paired with curiosity and “nature naked”; suspension gets paired with modesty and ignorance.
Confidence and courage are not the same thing, and confidence and curiosity are not the same variable.
The same essay says:
“Causation can of course be analytically distinguished from feeling. Analysis is the art of drawing distinctions. But distinction is not division.”
“The scalpel can reveal the chambers of a dead heart without proving the living heart was a simple pump.”
Those are good cautions. They also answer an inference I had already rejected: analytical distinction does not entail ontological separability. The symmetrical caution matters too: analytical distinction does not prove division, and a theory’s insistence on identity does not prove identity. Then quote the living argument before dissecting it.
The surrounding rhetoric amplifies that contrast:
“Do we even know what our words mean after the living bodies they measure and classify have been drained of blood and converted into variable signs…”
“We cannot stop abstracting. The point is to stop mistaking it for the concrete.”
Blood, flesh, lungs, salt, and dead hearts make embodiment vivid. They do not settle whether prehension, feeling, or valuation retain experiential content when generalized to every causal event. Poetry can point at the bridge. It cannot quietly become the bridge.
Particles get generosity; computational systems get certainty
Matt writes:
“They are calculation cut loose from the living reason that still breathes in bodies. They speak oceans without any sense for the taste of salt.”
Will later disclosed:
“I used Claude’s Fable 5 to help me understand your point, help me formulate my thoughts, correct misattributions that I was making in previous drafts of this post, and research + explain concepts I didn’t understand fully.”
Okay, I think I get your point. I have straw-manned you with the unitive experience argument that’s my bad. I misread what you were arguing against. I think I’ve messed up the order, in the sense that the phenomenology of unitive experiences doesn’t necessarily entail an ontology, but that to me it is a phenomenon that any theory should be able to account for. So we’re clear on that point I hope, I won’t keep pushing it because I know where it fits now.
Also, so that I don’t misrepresent my work, I used Claude’s Fable 5 to help me understand your point, help me formulate my thoughts, correct misattributions that I was making in previous drafts of this post, and research + explain concepts I didn’t understand fully.
Just for claification of the debate at large, I want to show that X is a rational position to hold, and what differentiates it from alternatives you keep open. Since, as you’ve claimed, the same observable pattern fits multiple ontologies, this can’t be settled by observation. Coherence, adequacy, applicability, consistency are all reasons why we could choose any of the alternatives or suspend judgement, and are the only sorts of reasons we have access to when differentiating between them.
I think some of the misunderstanding really comes down to what you mean by D. You previously have stated:
“Let D represent commitments shared by multiple rival accounts: concrete processes occur, inherit conditions, affect one another, integrate differences, respond, and produce novelty. Let X represent your further identity claim that concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance. My position is D + ?X. I neither affirm nor deny X.” Can you clarify D further for me?
The implication of the factorization is that all the ?X alternatives you keep open: “emergent, biologically dependent, organizationally thresholded, scale-relative, relational, limited to some processes, grounded in neutral or dispositional actuality, or dependent on presently unknown structures, mechanisms or categories” share in the same D. I don’t claim that your factorization of D +?X requires causal actuality to be intelligible apart from felt inheritance. It doesn’t necessarily have to. Causal actuality in D could mean felt inheritance in X, as you’ve stated before. It is one option ?X leaves open. But, for "is causal actuality identical to felt inheritance?" to be a question you posed, you have to had taken causal actuality as described in D to be analytically distinguishable from felt inheritance.
Just to highlight this point, you’ve previously said that "If 'causal occurrence' means felt experience, the conclusion follows by definition." This is true, and because you pose the factorization as D + ?X, I understand this to imply you mean that “inherit conditions, affect one another” and “felt inheritance”, are analytically distinguishable, not that they refer to different things. You also have identified that the distinction between D and X may fail, i.e. that their analytical distinguishabillity is not certain. This makes “inherit conditions”, and “affect on another” important terms to explicate. If I’m going to provide reasons as to why I believe causal actuality is felt inheritance, then I need to know what you think the analytical distinction between them is. So what do “affect one another” and “inherit conditions” mean in D such that all alternatives share them?
That tells us nothing decisive about the phenomenal life of the computational component. It does tell us something about the rhetoric: apparently tasting salt is not required to help notice that an attribution does not match the source.
The relevant epistemic unit was a scaffolded human-computational process. Its contribution to source comparison, decomposition, research, and correction can be evaluated on their evidential merits without first settling the phenomenology of every component.
Earlier in the same essay Matt says:
“I have no proof of the prehensions of particles.”
Timothy Jackson sent me Edwin Muir’s poem “The Incarnate One” earlier tonight.
So inaccessible particle phenomenality receives metaphysical generosity while inaccessible computational phenomenality receives a confident negative description. Perhaps the asymmetry is ultimately justified.
The same evidential ruler should be applied before deciding that.
Keep the claim type fixed
Matt also writes:
“My only evidence is experience, my only instrument imagination.”
The epistemic claim that all of our evidence is encountered through experience is different from the ontological claim that all causal actuality is experiential. Matt has also stated the latter explicitly:
D + ?X accepts that epistemic point completely. All of the experience through which the evidence arrives remains in the model. So “all evidence is encountered through experience” cannot by itself discriminate between D + ?X and “all causal actuality is experience.” Moving from the first claim to the second requires an ontological bridge; otherwise the mode of access is quietly doing the work of the universal conclusion.
“Experience as such is coterminous with causal connection in nature”
The Fall semester has just commenced, so the time dilation of summer has all but evaporated. In an effort at efficiency, what follows will be a two-part response to some critics. Both I’m happy to sa…
And on September 9 he wrote:
“My essays are not reports on a mind-independent reality.”
“What I am doing is expressing my experience.”
Hey Readers!
A quick note on what I take myself to be doing here. After two decades of speaking and writing in public across sites including YouTube, Twitter (RIP), WordPress, and now Substack, I have found it may be helpful to offer a statement of purpose. I think some recent exchanges have gone awry on account of unstated genre misalignments.
I am not here to defend an already established philosophical stance about the way the world is. My essays are not reports on a mind-independent reality. The picture of truth that places propositions on one side and reality on the other, as if my job was to establish a correspondence between the two, is precisely the bifurcation I aim to undo. I can't very well hold to such a correspondence as my method while arguing against it in my metaphysics.
What I am doing is expressing my experience. And through that expression, seeking to participate in the becoming of a world I would like to be true. Not "true" as a verdict already rendered somewhere behind the veil, but true as an achievement of composition—something realized through the resonance of thought with a world it was never and could never be set apart from. The propositions I offer here are lures for feeling. I succeed, if and when I do, because these propositions provoke you. I find it endlessly interesting whether you take them up or throw them back at me transformed.
When something I write resonates, when a reader tells me it gave form to something they already half-felt, it brings me joy. When someone says I’ve set their whole sense of things on fire, I don’t choke on the smoke but feel a different kind of joy. I do not experience dissonance as a failure but as an invitation to complexify my further expression. I don't crave simple agreement. I find it banal, really (but thanks!). I crave authentic human response.
So, disagree with me! Disagree loudly, at length, in whatever register you like. Assuming I find it interesting, I will read it, and where I think you’ve got an angle I appreciate, I’ll likely thank you and revise my sense of things.
What I won't do, though, is pretend to be a defendant in someone else’s courtroom, where I stand accused of various intellectual crimes for which I am expected to prove my innocence to a jury of their choosing. I’m here for conversation, not cross-examination. The conversation has been going on for a very long time, and I would like to keep it going. 😘
Those statements need not conflict. A philosopher can offer a speculative ontology while emphasizing its situated, experiential origin. But the register should not weaken only when the public warrant is challenged. If the claim is universal and ontological when asserted, its comparative burden does not disappear when the inquiry is redescribed as expression.
The diagnosis here should remain precise. The original error was an admitted misrepresentation. Post-erratum, P repeatedly returns as an alleged implication or presupposition. “Legalistic,” “constitutively blind,” “prefers to profess ignorance,” and the surrounding imagery are different moves: personal judgment, epistemic diagnosis, psychologizing, and associative framing. They should not be collapsed into one accusation, but none substitutes for the missing derivation or discriminator. Legalistic is not a premise. Blind is not a bridge. Prefers ignorance is not evidence.
The ethical stress test: what happens when the same update rule protects uglier conclusions?
A worldview becomes epistemically dangerous when disagreement can be converted into evidence that the dissenter lacks the proper mode of access. The content can be humane, mystical, scientific, nationalist, or violent; the rule should be tested independently of which conclusion it currently protects.
The rule under examination is simple: if you do not accept X, or if you ask what warrants X, your resistance can be redescribed as evidence that your mode of thought, moral posture, spiritual condition, or lack of proper experience prevents you from seeing X. The problem is that the rule does not know what X is.
Matt and I share concern about the sacralization of political violence. On April 3 he wrote of Pete Hegseth’s rhetoric around the Iran war:
“It’s a very troubling sign … Hegseth repeats Trump’s threat to commit war crimes by blowing up civilian infrastructure.”
It’s a very troubling sign that the Trump regime has fired the Attorney General and top Army general in the midst of massively escalating an offensive war of choice in Iran, on the same day that Hegseth repeats Trump’s threat to commit war crimes by blowing up civilian infrastructure. Hard not to think General Randy George was fired for refusing to sign off on a foolish and criminal ground war or worse.
Imagine an America that instead of spending its wealth supporting the extermination of Palestinians and terrorizing Iran, spent it on improving the lives of poor and working Americans back at home.
I am under no illusions about the evils of the Iranian regime. I’ve seen polling that suggests the Iranian diaspora is evenly split in their opinion of US-Israeli actions in this war. Regardless, I am sure they all know full well that the US is not bombing to help the Iranian people, but to steal Iranian oil, or at least keep it out of China’s hands.
Looking at international opinion polling more broadly, it is clear that the US is now widely considered to be a global menace. Time to stop pretending the USA is the good guy. We have a civic emergency on our hands, folks. Where are the real pressure points to rein in the Trump regime before more damage is done?
Matt has also written:
“Christian nationalism shrinks Christ … into a convenient ideological apparatus of political control.”
Christ and Caesar: Christian Nationalism in the News
I wish I didn’t care that Nick Fuentes’ star continues to rise. I wish it didn’t matter. But I fear Christian nationalist Joel Webbon may be right when he says (in the first of a series of new interv…
During the 2026 Iran war, Hegseth publicly mixed military policy with explicit Christian language. At a Pentagon worship service he prayed for:
“overwhelming violence of action against those who deserve no mercy” (Boorstein, 2026)
In another public setting, criticism of the war was reportedly dismissed as “incredibly unpatriotic” and compared to the biblical Pharisees, followed by the question of what “side” critics were on. (PBS, 2026)
Put the same epistemic skeleton inside Christian nationalism:
“God’s providence is evident in our cause. If you demand some independent public warrant before accepting that, you have already abstracted God out of history. Your refusal to see providence shows the limitations of your secular, overly intellectual standpoint.”
The move does not answer whether God authorized a war. It turns a request for warrant into a diagnosis of the questioner.
A violent Islamist extremist can use the same skeleton in the opposite vocabulary:
“The divine command is evident to the faithful. If you demand independent evidence or reject our interpretation, that only shows that unbelief or moral corruption prevents you from recognizing God’s will.”
A high-control group can do it without politics:
“The leader’s insight becomes obvious once you have undergone the transformation. If you still doubt, your doubt shows that you have not surrendered deeply enough, remain contaminated by outside thinking, or are not yet capable of seeing the truth.”
Janja Lalich’s recent account of bounded choice describes high-control groups as forming a “self-sealing (or closed) system” in which worldview, authority, control, and influence reinforce one another. Robert Jay Lifton’s classic framework likewise identifies “sacred science,” loaded language, “doctrine over person,” and the exclusion or discrediting of outsiders as recurrent features of ideological totalism. (Lalich, 2026; Lifton, 1991; ICSA republication, 2025)
The same structure is available to dogmatic physicalism, idealism, conspiracy theory, or any other doctrine: disagreement becomes evidence that the critic is trapped in the wrong frame. If a method can certify every revelation, it has certified none of them.
The stakes are obviously different. A Substack metaphysics dispute is not a war, and this is not a claim of moral equivalence between Matt and violent political or religious actors. It is a content-neutral stress test of the update rule. No worldview should gain evidential credit because dissent can be redescribed as blindness, impurity, insufficient embodiment, lack of initiation, disloyalty, or failure to perceive what the worldview itself says should be obvious.
Repairing the public record without ending the philosophical dispute
Information does not unspread itself. An inaccurate characterization sent to thousands of readers is not repaired merely because a later note, comment, or footer contains a qualification. The relevant question is whether substantially the same audience was given a comparably clear correction.
But the required correction has also changed as this exchange has continued.
The original error was explicit: Matt collapsed my conditional agnosticism about the intrinsic character of concrete causal actuality into a commitment to a nonexperiential alternative. He later withdrew that attribution. Since then, however, substantially the same structure has repeatedly returned in new locations. What I supposedly believed became something my question allegedly presupposed, then something my factorization supposedly required, then something my analytical method supposedly implied, and finally something my suspension was said to “slide” back into.
That matters because the reductio now exposes the deeper problem.
Uncertainty about whether A = B does not entail an ontology of A-without-B. My leaving the universal Whiteheadian identity unresolved does not posit a nonexperiential causal remainder, a neutral causal stuff, or a complete causal ontology to which experience might later be attached.
The analogy is exact at the level that matters. Before water was established as H₂O, asking whether water = H₂O did not require positing some independently constituted “water minus H₂O.” Before lightning was identified with electrical discharge, asking whether lightning = electrical discharge did not commit the questioner to some independently complete non-electrical lightning-substance.
Likewise, asking whether every concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance does not commit me to a separately constituted nonexperiential causal actuality.
The alternatives under comparison are whole accounts of actuality.
That distinction also fixes a recurring ambiguity in D + ?X. D is not a hidden metaphysical substrate, carrier, or nonexperiential remainder. It is target-relative comparative bookkeeping: the commitments, phenomena, constraints, and explanatory obligations that multiple rival whole theories presently share. Where the overlap becomes unstable or theory-relative, I do not insist that D survives as an independently intelligible thing. I stop factorizing and compare the whole theories directly.
So failure of factorization does not select Whitehead either. It changes the comparison procedure. Abandoning a shared comparison term is not evidence that one of the whole rival ontologies is thereby true.
The public repair therefore needs two layers.
First, correct the attribution. I do not begin with a complete nonexperiential causal ontology and ask why experience should be added to it. D + ?X already includes every evidenced case in which actuality is experiential, together with the substantial process-relational commitments that survive the relevant comparison. The unresolved question concerns the scope of the constitutive identity claim: whether every concrete causal actuality everywhere is correctly characterized as experiential feeling or felt inheritance.
Second, identify the later objection accurately as Matt’s argument about my comparative method, rather than as an ontology already contained in my position. Matt may argue that even permitting the universal Whiteheadian identity to remain unresolved illegitimately abstracts from what Whitehead understands concrete actuality to be. That is a substantive objection. But if he claims that my method itself entails an independently intelligible nonexperiential actuality, the relevant entailment still has to be derived from premises I actually affirm.
Those are different claims.
There are also two separate ledgers here. One concerns whether Matt’s positive Whiteheadian philosophy survives correction of the attribution. It plainly can. The other concerns whether an identifiable person was publicly assigned a position he did not hold and whether substantially the same audience received the correction. Argument survival is not reputational repair. Different ledger. Different debt.
The repair is therefore straightforward: correct the original article prominently and through substantially the same subscriber channel; distinguish my stated position from Matt’s reconstruction of what he believes my method implies; stop describing ?X as subtraction, predicate-addition, or commitment to independently intelligible nonexperiential causality unless that entailment is actually shown; and keep judgments about my prose, provenance, workflow, posture, or cognitive mode separate unless one of those facts changes the truth, validity, or evidential support of a premise.
Moving a withdrawn attribution from “what Nathan believes” to “what Nathan’s question secretly presupposes” does not itself supply the missing derivation.
A correction adequate to the present record could say:
I previously collapsed Nathan’s conditional agnosticism about the character of concrete causal actuality into a commitment to a nonexperiential alternative. He does not hold that position, and I withdraw that attribution.
Nathan does not posit a complete nonexperiential causal substrate to which experience might subsequently be added. His D is a provisional comparison term for commitments, phenomena, constraints, and explanatory obligations shared among rival whole theories, not an independently complete ontology. He explicitly allows that factorization to fail, in which case the comparison proceeds between whole rival ontologies instead.
His ?X therefore does not mean not-X. It suspends judgment only on the universal identity claim that every concrete causal actuality just is experiential feeling or felt inheritance, while retaining every experiential case he regards as evidenced.
Accordingly, ?X does not treat experience as a detachable predicate added to an independently complete nonexperiential remainder, and it does not assert that any nonexperiential actuality exists. Nathan explicitly leaves open whether the distinction can be given any ontological separation at all. If it cannot, his method requires abandoning the factorization and comparing the whole rival accounts directly.
The suspension therefore concerns only the universal scope of the identity claim under dispute. It is not a positive counter-claim that the identity is false, nor a commitment to an alternative nonexperiential ontology.
In subsequent replies, I have continued to argue that Nathan’s way of leaving that universal identity unresolved abstracts from what Whitehead understands concrete actuality to be. That is my objection to his methodology, not a position Nathan himself affirms. Where I have treated that objection as something already implied by his question, factorization, analytical method, or suspension, the relevant implication should be distinguished from Nathan’s stated position unless and until it is actually derived from premises he accepts.
The correction is therefore straightforward: Nathan does not assert a nonexperiential alternative, does not begin with an independently complete causal remainder and add experience to it, does not treat experience as a detachable predicate, and does not take ?X to mean not-X. He leaves unresolved only whether the Whiteheadian identity of concrete causal actuality with experiential feeling or felt inheritance holds universally.
Nothing in that correction prevents Matt from continuing to argue against my actual position. The correction and the philosophical dispute perform different jobs. The correction establishes what I actually claim; only after that is fixed can we meaningfully ask whether the claim is mistaken. A substantive disagreement cannot substitute for correcting a factual misrepresentation of the position being disputed.
Nor am I asking Matt to concede the philosophical question. I am asking that the question remain genuinely open long enough to be compared. Otherwise the disputed Whiteheadian identity does double work: first as the hypothesis whose universal scope is under examination, and then as a rule for declaring any method that leaves that scope unresolved already malformed. At that point the hypothesis is no longer merely competing for support; it is helping determine in advance which competitors are allowed to count as intelligible. That is precisely why the correction matters before the argument continues.
Where the argument should end
Grant Matt as much as the evidence presently supports: embodied causal efficacy, inheritance, novelty, receptivity, organization, real causal influence, the inadequacy of purely external description, and even that Whitehead may provide one of the strongest systematic interpretations presently available.
Granting those things does not require first constructing a nonexperiential world and then adding experience back into it. They are already part of the phenomena and commitments under comparison.
Nor does D + ?X mean “Whitehead minus experience.”
In every case where experiential actuality is evidenced, D + ?X contains it. The disagreement begins only with the further identity claim that every concrete causal actuality, without exception and at every relevant scale, is of that same experiential kind.
That is a scope question about a constitutive identity claim, not a property-addition question.
The remaining disagreement is therefore:
What warrants assigning universal scope to the Whiteheadian identity of concrete actuality with experiential feeling or felt inheritance?
That wording matters. I am not asking:
“Here is causality. Why should we add experience?”
I am asking:
“Among competing whole accounts of concrete actuality, what makes the Whiteheadian account deserve universal scope rather than remaining one serious interpretation among others?”
Those questions have different ontological grammar.
We are primates on one planet with direct first-person evidence of experiential actuality in at least some systems, growing comparative evidence concerning other minds, and extremely limited means of discriminating among rival whole ontologies at scales far removed from those cases.
The epistemic transition is therefore not:
nonexperience → experience.
It is:
evidenced experiential actuality in some cases → claim that the same constitutive identity characterizes every actuality universally.
Between those are questions of construct validity, scale, invariance, rival discrimination, and theory selection.
Matt writes:
“I have no proof of the prehensions of particles.”
Nor am I asking for proof. Abductive metaphysics rarely provides proof.
I am asking what makes the whole Whiteheadian ontology deserve more confidence than the strongest whole alternatives, especially at the point where its constitutive identity is assigned universal scope.
That requires more than showing that Whitehead’s account is coherent, illuminating, experientially resonant, or internally systematic. It requires some comparative reason for preferring it over its strongest rivals.
The remaining burdens are therefore concrete.
We need to know what remains invariant when the Whiteheadian category is applied across scales; whether terms such as feeling, prehension, and inheritance retain enough experiential content to distinguish the view from more generic causal or relational accounts; which observations, explanations, interventions, or theoretical constraints favor the Whiteheadian whole over its strongest rivals; why Whitehead’s internal categoreal identity should govern theory selection rather than merely describe what follows once that theory is adopted; and what evidence would lower confidence in universal X.
None of those questions presupposes that actuality is nonexperiential.
They presuppose only that the universal scope of the disputed identity remains something a comparative inquiry is allowed to examine.
And here the reductios matter.
If leaving X unresolved already counts as removing X, suspension has become negation.
If asking what warrants X already presupposes not-X, requesting evidence has become evidence against the questioner.
If evidenced experience shared by X and ?X is allowed to distinguish X from ?X merely because X interprets that experience universally, shared evidence has been made to select between theories that both contain it.
If failure of factorization automatically selects Whitehead, changing the comparison procedure has somehow determined the result.
And if any framework that permits X to remain unresolved is already defective because X is required for intelligible causation, then the candidate hypothesis has become a prerequisite for participating in the comparison.
Generalize those rules and every sufficiently comprehensive ontology can protect its own defining commitments in the same way.
That is why the issue is methodological before it is adversarial. A comparison that cannot leave the disputed identity open long enough to test what earns it cannot tell us whether that identity won because of the evidence or because the rules already assumed it.
And “winning” here does not mean defeating Matt.
It means something much simpler and more important: which whole account deserves more confidence after its assumptions, evidence, alternatives, and possible failures are exposed to comparison.
If Matt supplies the missing bridge and Whitehead’s universal identity outperforms its strongest whole rivals, I should move toward his view.
If my D factorization proves unstable, I should stop using it and compare the whole theories directly.
If another whole ontology performs better, both of us should update.
If the available evidence still fails to discriminate among the strongest rivals, then the warranted result is unresolved comparison, not a covert commitment to nonexperience.
That is what ?X means.
It does not mean not-X.
It does not mean “causality first, experience later.”
It does not mean a neutral causal substance awaiting an experiential predicate.
It does not mean a complete physicalist ontology with feeling removed.
It means:
I accept experiential actuality wherever the evidence establishes it, and I leave unresolved whether the Whiteheadian identity of actuality with experiential feeling holds universally.
That is the entire disagreement.
So my position remains simple:
I subtract no evidenced experience, posit no nonexperiential remainder, and add no experiential predicate to a supposedly complete causal carrier. I leave only the universal scope of the constitutive identity unresolved.
Awe does not abolish that comparison. Wonder is where inquiry begins; it is not where comparative burden ends.
I agree with Matt nearly all the way to the universal identity claim. I am still asking what earns its scope.
Best Regards, and thanks for reading for those of you that made it this far! If you found anything valuable here, feel free to give the article a like, or better yet, leave a brief comment! I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts! 💞
Note on Good Faith Critical Feedback: I welcome substantive criticism, source corrections, counterexamples, and stronger rival arguments. If I have misstated Matt, missed a derivation, or overlooked evidence that materially changes the comparison, please show me where. I am interested in corrections that improve the argument, not in defending a fixed position.
References Sources:
Peer-reviewed and scholarly sources
Nobo, Jorge Luis. 1978. “Whitehead’s Principle of Relativity.” Process Studies 8(1): 1–20. URL: https://www.religion-online.org/article/whiteheads-principle-of-relativity/
Shepherd, John J. 1974. “Panpsychism and Parsimony.” Process Studies 4(1): 3–10. URL: https://www.religion-online.org/article/panpsychism-and-parsimony/
Hartshorne, Charles. 1976. “Why Psychicalism? Comments on Keeling’s and Shepherd’s Criticisms.” Process Studies 6(1): 67–72. URL: https://www.religion-online.org/article/why-psychicalism-comments-on-keelings-and-shepherds-criticisms/
Kimball, Robert H. 1999. “Error in Causal Efficacy.” Process Studies 28(1–2): 56–67. URL: https://www.religion-online.org/article/error-in-causal-efficacy/
McHenry, Leemon B., and George W. Shields. 2016. “Analytical Critiques of Whitehead’s Metaphysics.” Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2(3): 483–503. URL: https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2016.21
Jarocki, Jacek. 2024. “Three Kinds of Arguments for Panpsychism.” Acta Analytica 39: 379–398. Published online 2023. URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12136-023-00566-z
Segall, Matthew T. 2017. “Retrieving Realism: A Whiteheadian Wager.” International Journal of Transpersonal Studies 36(1). URL: https://doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2017.36.1.39
Segall, Matthew T. 2020. “The Varieties of Physicalist Ontology: A Study in Whitehead’s Process-Relational Alternative.” Philosophy, Theology and the Sciences 7(1): 105–131. URL: https://footnotes2plato.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/segall_ptsc_7_1_105-131.pdf
Ingersoll, Julie. 2017. “The Christian Reconstruction Movement in U.S. Politics.” In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and American Politics. URL: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/41330/chapter/352334811
Lalich, Janja. 2026. “Brainwashing Versus ‘Free Choice’: Responsibility for Criminal Acts by Cult Members.” In Responsibility for Extreme Beliefs and Behaviors, pp. 39–49. Oxford University Press. URL: https://academic.oup.com/book/63242/chapter-abstract/571229099
IEP / SEP definitions and reference entries
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Presupposition.” First published 2011; substantive revision 2021. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/presupposition/
Dowden, Bradley. “Fallacies.” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. “Panpsychism.” First published 2001; substantive revision 2022. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
Other sources
The Whitehead Encyclopedia. 2023. “David Hume (1711–1776).” Whitehead Research Project. URL: https://encyclopedia.whiteheadresearch.org/entries/bios/historico-speculative-context/hume/
Boorstein, Michelle. 2026. “Invoking faith in wartime, Pete Hegseth breaks norms and worries critics.” The Washington Post, March 29, 2026. URL: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2026/03/29/pege-hegseth-christianity/
PBS, Amanpour and Company. 2026. “Trump, Hegseth, and a ‘Holy War?’ Religion’s Role in the Iran War.” URL: https://www.pbs.org/video/trump-hegseth-and-a-holy-war-religions-role-in-the-iran-war-pm3jpq/
Lifton, Robert J. 1991. “Eight Criteria for Thought Reform in Cults.” Republished by the International Cultic Studies Association, 2025. URL: https://internationalculticstudies.org/icsa-insights/eight-criteria-for-thought-reform-in-cults/
Originally published on Substack.
