[1]
I agree with Herbert FJ Muller in that mind has a fundamental place in the Universe, and, more importantly, that mind is able to interact with matter in an autonomous manner. At the same time, I think that the correspondence theory of objective and absolute truth proven by Tarski and Godel offers a firm basis to the concept of reality independent of one's free thought. Mental freedom involves also the possibility of freedom of our thoughts from corresponding to objective reality. But the noetic (or consciousness) principle of the Universe planted into us an inclination to search and find the objective, or communal (interpersonal) truth. This means that there exist objective and absolute truth and reality, and we are able to find it. Therefore, we do not have to choose between a passive although prestructured block-universe, from the one side, and an active but exclusively human consciousness structured world, on the other side. Moreover, we do not have to choose either materialism or idealism. Both cases would mean the denial of some ultimate realities. Instead, the world may be active at all its ontological levels at the proper and suitable rates, and, simultaneously, its (her/his?) activity may be governed by ultimate principles which are universal and transcending space and time. In my paper I explored the ontological structure of reality and found a triunite structure at the principal level: the ontological principles of physics, biology and psychology, corresponding in the abstract level of phenomena to matter, life and consciousness, on the concrete level of phenomena to body, feeling/emotion and thought. These threefold ultimate realities while give a determined face to the Universe, they form a dynamic whole in rich and yet unexplored relations to each other, and the result of their interactions is the dynamic, material, living and conscious, unified, organic and coherent Universe.

[2]
Herbert FJ Muller in his Commentary <1> stated that the main problem with materialism is that it excludes the subject, and only secondarily, that it generalizes a principle of inert matter. This view apparently presupposes a Cartesian ontology of (conscious) mind (subject) and (extended) matter (object). My paper attempted to explore the ontological structure of the world, and found that it has a tripartite/triunite structure, expressed in the principal level with the action-principle of physics; the life principle of biology; and the consciousness principle in psychology; at the abstract phenomenological level matter, life and consciousness; at the concrete phenomenological level body, feelings/emotions and thoughts. Materialism is a system excluding every other fundamental reality besides matter, therefore, it denies the matter-independent reality and/or autonomy of life as well as consciousness. I do not think that the exclusion of subject would be the first step and the over-extrapolation of matter would be a second step. It seems to me that these two steps express one and the same move; the denial of any independent fundamental reality besides matter.

[3]
Muller suggested in <1> that subject-inclusive physical laws would be more to the point for dealing with the problems posed by materialism. Opposite to this view, with the help of the approach of my paper I was able to prove that subjects (living organisms and conscious beings) do not follow the laws of physics, but the life principle which is able to govern the physical behavior, too. To reach this result it was necessary to found a definition of physics and physical behavior. For a solution I proposed that physics is the science the laws of which are governed by the action principle. Therefore, subject-inclusive physical laws would mean that the behavior of subjects would be governed by the laws of physics, therefore, the result is a materialism or physicalism again which (although perhaps implicitly) is based on the assumption that any possible subjects should have necessarily a material nature, following in its behavior exclusively the laws of physics. On the contrary, in my paper I argued that the behavior of living organisms is not governed by the laws of physics but by an independent principle found by Ervin Bauer. As I pointed out, the irreal compression of non-physical realms into the frame of physicalism has a result in which the action of consciousness implies a paradoxical Klein-bottle structure of reality (Grandpierre, 2003, http://www.konkoly.hu/staff/grandpierre/NATO_ARW.html). These paradoxes can be resolved only in a plural, non-monolithic ontology.

[4]
Another point to clarify is the relation of hylozoism <1> to the approach that found a kind of instincts in atoms. Hylozoism is a view regarding matter as being alive. I would not think that instincts representing the action principle of physics would mean that atoms are alive. In my approach, atoms would be alive if they would follow the Bauer-principle instead of the action-principle. But of course, I acknowledge that atoms follow the action principle of physics. The atomic instincts are closely related to the propensities of Popper (in: The Open Universe, 1982; A World of Propensities, 1990). Propensities are generalizations of the concept of Newtonian "force". Force is push, and so it is closely related to causes. Causes are determined as one-sided, asymmetric, constant and outer (Mario Bunge: The Place of the Causal Principle in Modern Science, 1959) objective inclinations occurring in certain situations. In contrast, propensities and atomic instincts as generalized causes. They are collective phenomena developing in situations which are many-sided, mutual, changing and inner. Even principles join to this list of more and more generalized causes. The list of generalized causes expands from single, point-like forces to collective propensities, instincts and, ultimately, principles. Principles mean a long-range government in time between two states that are far in time from each other. The government by a principle is expressed in the time development of a process, and this process expresses a directivity which may be in a close relation to the propensities governed by "attractions" and "the lure of the future and its competing possibilities" (Popper, 1990, p. 21).

[5]
Pan-psychism is a view regarding all existents as having psyche. Although the word 'psyche' had widely different meaning in ancient Greece (representing the principle governing the behavior of animals), in our times it is used mostly in relation to human consciousness. With a meaning "psyche = human consciousness", pan-psychism would be a view that every existent is endowed with a kind of consciousness. Although in my approach the world cannot be split objectively to three completely separated realms, my results suggest that atoms generally show a physical and not a psychological behavior.

[6]
The ontological structure of reality explored in my approach found three fundamental (or first) principles at the deepest, principal level of reality. These principles are scientific principles, and it is possible to formulate them in a mathematical form. The evolution of physics had been shown that the formulation of the first principle of physics evolved with the evolution of our knowledge. It changed from the least action principle of Maupertuis into the Hamilton-principle, and the action principle of quantum field theories. Therefore, although the formulation of this first principle developed through the ages, the essence of the principle did not change, and it expresses a reality independent of our present-day knowledge, actually, it presents a principal reality. We cannot say much on the life-principle or Bauer-principle because it is relatively young and not widely applied yet. Moreover, we cannot say but a few words of the consciousness-principle because it is not formulated until now. We also do not know if any further ontological principle should be introduced later on or not. But the very concept of 'principle' expresses an approach - the deepest approach possible - which is independent of any timely existent, including mind and mental structuring. All our theories and all our empirical findings permanently confirmed these ultimate principles. Therefore, they represent the most firmly stated facts of the Universe. Their confirmation is so strong that it is in principle and in practice not possible to imagine anything more confirmed than they are. Therefore we do not think that "the elimination of the possibility of claims of fundamental (MIR) validity for ontological assertions" <3> corresponds to reality. Although the mental structures created by us are in principle always ad-hoc and temporary, since they belong to the level of phenomena, the principal level of reality remains the same in principle. Principles do not evolve in time, they are universal, one and the same in all space and time. They express the most fundamental structuring of the Universe, of physical, biological and psychological behavior.

[7]
You wrote in your <8>: "The life principles [41] are self-organization and self-reproduction, but powered by energy flow from the sun". Although this view is widely held, in the context of my approach this seems to be a misunderstanding. Life principle is not exclusively human and not exclusively terrestrial. Life may be present in most parts of the Universe, from molecular clouds near to absolute zero to stars, galaxies and the Universe as a whole. Life-principle may be active in organisms which do not self-reproduce but simply transfer life from one life-form to any other. In my book "The Book of the Living Universe" I argued that the Sun powers terrestrial life not only with energy but also with information.

[8]
In a sense I have to agree with your remark that "it is neither helpful nor possible to conclude on the basis of statistical reasoning that the appearance of life is a miracle [12]". My point was to call attention to the fact that the laws of physics cannot explain the extremely improbable phenomena which develop in living organisms, and especially the laws connecting these - on a purely physical basis - extremely improbable phenomena.

[9]
In the last sentence of your <9> you state that "The difference between the waterfall and (human or other) life [35-36] is self-organization within the flow of the energy stream." I would find a more exact formulation necessary, since certainly there are some kinds of self-organization processes in the waterfall, like vortex pattern-formation etc. The difference between the waterfall and life is that the waterfall follows only the laws of physics while the organisms follow the laws of biology as well. As Ervin Bauer (1935/1967) writes : the waterfall could be alive only if it will be able to generate and maintain the water level difference; if it would invest its own work to generate and re-generate its ability to do outer work.

[10]
In your <10> you wrote: "SE is first, and cannot be a consequence of, or reduced to, mind-independent entities or processes, which themselves are created within SE." In a sense, I agree with your statement. In the context of my approach, it is a question, from where do the laws of physics arise, how is able an object to recognize and follow the laws of physics. I think that this question refers to the relation between the principal and phenomenal levels of existence. In a sense, the principal level is the deepest reality, because it is permanently realized everywhere and governs everything. How can a concrete atom follow such a deeper level of reality ? I think that the answer is that the concrete atoms are the manifestations of this deeper level of reality, and they are in genetic connection with their parental reality which is the principal reality. Therefore, the structure of the Universe may be regarded as a genetic pool available for atoms, realized perhaps through quantum interactions, too. In this sense, the parable I applied - "atomic instincts" - may be more transparent. At the same time, the relation of atoms to their parental principles may be an intimate, internal relation, and if this is the case, then we may say that SE is the first. In my approach, your SE is the relation between the phenomenal and parental (ontological) levels of reality. This means that I distinguish a deeper than SE level of reality - the principal level where the ultimate principles live.

[11]
Apparently, this would mean a difference to the view expressed in your <11>, where you state that "Physical laws are mental mind-and-nature structures we create inside SE. The scientific principles try to describe the physical experiences, but they do not cause them". My view is a generalized realism, in which life and consciousness are regarded as autonomous, self-governing realities besides the realm of physical matter. Within the frames of generalized realism, physical laws are deeper realities than phenomena. Physical laws govern the physical behavior in the same way as our decisions govern our conscious, responsible behavior. The view that scientific principles do not govern but only describe physical experiences seems to me an immaterialism denying the autonomous, self-governing reality of material world, that is, the reality of the ultimate principle of physics. In my approach, I do not deny the existence of matter, the existence of life, and the existence of consciousness.

[12]
In your <13>, you wrote: "To ascribe instinctual functions to atoms and to nature in general is, in contrast, not warranted. In your proposal it serves to compensate for the missing subject in physical MIR-theory." In contrast, I think that it is warranted to ascribe situation-dependent propensities to atoms also by Bunge (declaring that a more general determination should replace causality) and by Popper (A world of propensities). The fact that life is intimately related to collective phenomena is an inevitable necessity. Microparticles have only individual degrees of freedom. Organisms are based on organizational processes and these are possible only by generating collective and global degrees of freedom. The experimental results studying living phenomena (del Giudice et al., Vitiello, Umezawa, Jibu and Yasue etc.) gave a strong experimental basis to this statement. But collective effects become merely physical without an inclination (i.e. a measurable directivity) towards life. Now recent experimental results of Steinman and Cole; and Ponnamperuma, Allamandola etc. imply that matter has an innate tendency to grope in the direction of life (Davies, P. Fifth Miracle, 1998, 235). These and other arguments (Grandpierre, in preparation) makes the case plausible that atomic instincts, propensities, inclinations, tendencies towards life exist. Therefore, atomic instincts are not compensation for the missing subject in a physicalist frame, but the expression of the principal nature of our Universe.

[13]
In <15> you wrote: "A better way is not to amputate (or more accurately: to re-insert) the subject at the beginning of the irreducible SE ?" I would not agree with the introduction of the term "irreducible SE" since for me it suggests that there are no conceivable reality behind the phenomenal level. With the help of the generalized realism that I tried to develop in my works, the "irreducible SE" is a manifestation of deeper level ontological principles which may be studied within the frame of exact science. "Irreducible SE" for me is related to the fact that consciousness principle is universal, permeates the Universe as a whole, although it is not manifested in every of its elements. I think that there exist a consciousness principle which is worthwhile to explore and which is possible to formulate, and so it is not irreducible before our understanding. Moreover, I propose that only the exploration and acceptance of such first principles can make sciences really exact. These principles may be formulated in mathematical forms, and all the physical and biological phenomena are deducible (the most important ones are already derived) from them in a quantitative manner. Therefore, my proposal is that instead of the life-excluding, phenomenal, superficial and artificially narrowed-down approaches to biology - be they materialist or idealist - we should try to become familiar with life as a fundamental constituent of the Universe, and, of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

[14]
I agree with your position <16> that "nature is separated from the subject only in a pragmatic fashion - we are always talking about the whole, any compartments are secondary and pragmatic." At the same time, I would like to point out that Nature itself shows a triunite ontological structure. The oneness of the world is undeniable, but maybe this cosmic oneness is farther from our present-day scientific perspective than the first principles from which we already know two in detailed mathematical form. Therefore, I regard the study of these ultimate principles as of primary importance for physics and biology, and, in general, for science, and an objective worldview, also from a pragmatic point of view.

I am really interested in any of your feed-backs to these notes.

----------------------------------------------

REFERENCES:

Bunge, Mario: The Place of the Causal Principle in Modern Science, 1959

Davies, Paul: Fifth Miracle. 1998, Penguin Books.

Grandpierre, A.: The Dynamics of Time and Timelessness: Philosophy, Physics and Prospect for our Lives, Key talk at the NATO ARW "The Nature of Time: Geometry, Physics and Perception", May 21-24, 2002, Tatranska Lomnica, Slovak Republic, 2003, 383-392,

http://www.konkoly.hu/staff/grandpierre/NATO_ARW.html

Popper, Karl: The Open Universe. Rowman and Littlefield, Tutowa, New Jersey, 1982.

Popper, Karl: A World of Propensities, 1990, Thoemmes, Bristol

Schueller, G.: Stuff of life, New Scientist, 12 September 1998, p. 30

-----------------------------------

Attila Grandpierre

e-mail <grandp@ella.hu>