Big Picture Part Six: Caring

One of a series of quick posts on the six sections of my book The Big PictureCosmos, Understanding, Essence, Complexity, Thinking, Caring.

Chapters in Part Six, Caring:

  • 45. Three Billion Heartbeats
  • 46. What Is and What Ought to Be
  • 47. Rules and Consequences
  • 48. Constructing Goodness
  • 49. Listening to the World
  • 50. Existential Therapy

In this final section of the book, we take a step back to look at the journey we’ve taken, and ask what it implies for how we should think about our lives. I intentionally kept it short, because I don’t think poetic naturalism has many prescriptive advice to give along these lines. Resisting the temptation to give out a list of “Ten Naturalist Commandments,” I instead offer a list of “Ten Considerations,” things we can keep in mind while we decide for ourselves how we want to live.

A good poetic naturalist should resist the temptation to hand out commandments. “Give someone a fish,” the saying goes, “and you feed them for a day. Teach them to fish, and you feed them for a lifetime.” When it comes to how to lead our lives, poetic naturalism has no fish to give us. It doesn’t even really teach us how to fish. It’s more like poetic naturalism helps us figure out that there are things called “fish,” and perhaps investigate the various possible ways to go about catching them, if that were something we were inclined to do. It’s up to us what strategy we want to take, and what to do with our fish once we’ve caught them.

There are nevertheless some things worth saying, because there are a lot of untrue beliefs to which we all tend to cling from time to time. Many (most?) naturalists have trouble letting go of the existence of objective moral truths, even if they claim to accept the idea that the natural world is all that exists. But you can’t derive ought from is, so an honest naturalist will admit that our ethical principles are constructed rather than derived from nature. (In particular, I borrow the idea of “Humean constructivism” from philosopher Sharon Street.) Fortunately, we’re not blank slates, or computers happily idling away; we have aspirations, desires, preferences, and cares. More than enough raw material to construct workable notions of right and wrong, no less valuable for being ultimately subjective.

Of course there are also incorrect beliefs on the religious or non-naturalist side of the ledger, from the existence of divinely-approved ways of being to the promise of judgment and eternal reward for good behavior. Naturalists accept that life is going to come to an end — this life is not a dress rehearsal for something greater, it’s the only performance we get to give. The average person can expect a lifespan of about three billion heartbeats. That’s a goodly number, but far from limitless. We should make the most of each of our heartbeats.

paris-catacombs-heart

The finitude of life doesn’t imply that it’s meaningless, any more than obeying the laws of physics implies that we can’t find purpose and joy within the natural world. The absence of a God to tell us why we’re here and hand down rules about what is and is not okay doesn’t leave us adrift — it puts the responsibility for constructing meaningful lives back where it always was, in our own hands.

Here’s a story one could imagine telling about the nature of the world. The universe is a miracle. It was created by God as a unique act of love. The splendor of the cosmos, spanning billions of years and countless stars, culminated in the appearance of human beings here on Earth — conscious, aware creatures, unions of soul and body, capable of appreciating and returning God’s love. Our mortal lives are part of a larger span of existence, in which we will continue to participate after our deaths.

It’s an attractive story. You can see why someone would believe it, and work to reconcile it with what science has taught us about the nature of reality. But the evidence points elsewhere.

Here’s a different story. The universe is not a miracle. It simply is, unguided and unsustained, manifesting the patterns of nature with scrupulous regularity. Over billions of years it has evolved naturally, from a state of low entropy toward increasing complexity, and it will eventually wind down to a featureless equilibrium condition. We are the miracle, we human beings. Not a break-the-laws-of-physics kind of miracle; a miracle in that it is wondrous and amazing how such complex, aware, creative, caring creatures could have arisen in perfect accordance with those laws. Our lives are finite, unpredictable, and immeasurably precious. Our emergence has brought meaning and mattering into the world.

That’s a pretty darn good story, too. Demanding in its own way, it may not give us everything we want, but it fits comfortably with everything science has taught us about nature. It bequeaths to us the responsibility and opportunity to make life into what we would have it be.

I do hope people enjoy the book. As I said earlier, I don’t presume to be offering many final answers here. I do think that the basic precepts of naturalism provide a framework for thinking about the world that, given our current state of knowledge, is overwhelmingly likely to be true. But the hard work of understanding the details of how that world works, and how we should shape our lives within it, is something we humans as a species have really only just begun to tackle in a serious way. May our journey of discovery be enlivened by frequent surprises!

This entry was posted in Big Picture. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Big Picture Part Six: Caring

  1. Hard Criticism says:

    Probably this part of the book I’ll skim very fast as you start to sound like a new age wanker. Not that I disagree with much of the sentiment but still it’s definitely the worst part of your book.

  2. Ben Goren says:

    you can’t derive ought from is

    No…but you can derive “should” from “want.”

    And that’s where our morality comes from.

    Pick any goal you might have, and odds are overwhelming that you’ll have better luck achieving your goal if you can draw on the resources of a cooperative society.

    (Yes, there’re exceptions — but exceptions abound in anything stochastic. The fact that you can sometimes win a game of poker by drawing on an inside straight doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea for you to play your hand that way.)

    Once you recognize that you have better odds working with and within an healthy society, the rest pretty much falls out of itself.

    Including the necessity that society must not involuntarily sacrifice individuals for the sake of the society. A society that does that is going to (obviously!) create defection. You’re not going to play nice with a society that doesn’t play nice with you any more than you’re going to play nice with another individual that doesn’t play nice with you.

    Cheers,

    b&

  3. Mark Sloan says:

    Sean,

    In the same spirit of “not offering too many final answers here”, I want to suggest an alternate understanding of what morality ‘is’. That aspect of morality does appear to be a necessary consequence of the architecture of the universe, is culturally useful, and therefore might fit nicely into your overall schema of the universe.

    If ‘morality’ refers to answering non-instrumental ‘ought’ questions such as what our ultimate goals ‘ought’ to be, what obligations we ‘ought’ to accept, or how we ‘ought’ to live, then we agree that morality is not built into the architecture of the universe (chapter 45).

    However, morality’s function (meaning the primary reason moral codes exist in all human societies and the biology underlying our moral sense exists) arguably is a necessary product of the architecture of our universe. No ‘ought’ from ‘is’ errors in logic involved.

    Science of the last 40 years or so is consistent with ‘moral’ behaviors (meaning behaviors motivated by our moral sense and advocated by moral codes, which is the common understanding of non-philosophers) being biological and cultural heuristics for elements of cooperation strategies.

    Those cooperation strategies, which prominently include direct and indirect reciprocity and marker (or tag) strategies, are necessary products of the architecture of our universe.

    I say these cooperation strategies are necessary products of the architecture of our universe because they are as universal in our reality (and therefore species independent) as the simple mathematics that reveal them. Alternatively, we can argue that as a consequence of the architecture of our universe, benefits of cooperation commonly exist. Also, cooperation exposes agents to exploitation. But exploitation makes cooperation a non-sustainable behavior. Sustainably maintaining the benefits of cooperation poses the same universal cooperation/exploitation dilemma to all independent agents.

    By solving this cross species universal dilemma, cooperation strategies implemented in our biology and cultural norms form the basis of what non-philosophers refer to as morality and which are the central biological and cultural adaptations that have enabled us to become the incredibly successful social species we are.

    But is this non-philosophical (since Socrates) view of morality a culturally useful one? It appears to be. If a group has a goal for enforcing its moral code of increasing well-being or flourishing (as is commonly the case), then science seems to me a better source of instrumental moral ‘oughts’ than most moral philosophy.

    Further, if a group wishes to enforce a moral code that is cross species universal (universally considered moral) from the beginning of time to the end of time, they should be studying in-group cooperation strategies that increase cooperation without exploiting out groups. Mainstream moral philosophy will again be of relatively little help.

    And perhaps by gaining a scientific grounding in what morality ‘is’, moral philosophers will be able to develop more convincing arguments about what morality and its goals ‘ought’ to be.

    Wouldn’t it be great if school children could learn “Do to others as you would have them do to you” is moral ‘gold’ because it advocates initiating indirect reciprocity?

    Mark Sloan

  4. my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard says:

    I haven’t read the book yet (just what’s on the net) but Carroll seems to be arguing against an old Christian god. A more advanced notion of God is not assigned Christian attributes. Indeed take, for example, a Higher Power. It can include God(s], but doesn’t have to.

  5. Gale Martha says:

    To respectfully disagree with the previous comment, I find Sean Carroll’s excerpt here to be fascinating and worth some thought: where does each of us stand on our place in the universe? Is it not one of the deepest questions of our existence? And doesn’t our answer guide how we approach our lives, the lives of others and our planet? I personally found his two alternative stories to be very provoking, and depending on my mood as an agnostic and as a scientist I find merit in both of them. I find neither wishy-washiness nor new age wankery in an established physicist’s explorations of philosophy as it pertains to science.

  6. i’m very much a ‘lay person’ in this (being a retired clergy person), but am expecting to enjoy the book (on order).
    My only comment, fwiw, is that I would replace ‘planets of belief’ with narratives, as I think we interpret reality more through a story than a set of tenets.

  7. Torbjörn Larsson says:

    Philosophical ethical analysis has a very narrow usefulness, in jurisdiction as a means to construct guiding principles among the laws lawmakers have made whether or not they are agreeable moral.

    I find myself agreeing with Ben, agreeable morals is a social utility.

    “We are the miracle, we human beings. Not a break-the-laws-of-physics kind of miracle; a miracle in that it is wondrous and amazing how such complex, aware, creative, caring creatures could have arisen in perfect accordance with those laws. Our lives are finite, unpredictable, and immeasurably precious. Our emergence has brought meaning and mattering into the world.”

    This analysis leaps from one place to another.

    – Nature is wondrous and amazing, but that isn’t a miracle.

    – Other species has brought their meaning and mattering into the world long before us, and will do so long after our own meaning no longer is mattering.

    The problem seems to be one of bias. Which is all right to have, but not a solid basis from which to form our lives and our agreeable morals. If you gaze long into a bias, a bias also gazes into you.

  8. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    Excuse my poor English.
    Rationality is explained by brain functioning, subject to Nature´s law. Rationality produce effects , real effects, (from atomic bomb to democratic laws), within them knowledge of universe functioning , then the reason is real and although generated by the physic of the brain and its internal dynamics, it is something else, it has effects or produce effects. It is equally valid a theory in physic based on experimental facts which are interpreted by the reason, as it is a theory about the reality of the rationality and thoughts, with the difference of methodology : scientific or philosophic.
    Philosophy applies to realities of the thoughts, which have a reality although not physical, let call it metaphysics of being. Laws of nature can not explain metaphysics of being.

  9. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    About ethic and morality, no, up to now, any help from Physic knowledge. Although in old Greek Philosophy , epicureans, and stoics they grounded their ethical thoughts on a physical interpretation of the world, nowadays new applied ethics are based on philosophical thinking, such as cooperative discursive ethics by Habermas and others; as an old engineer as I am I believe that the new concept of Universe will have an impact in philosophical thinking as it did the General Relativity and Quantum Theory. But the deep ethical sense in all human societies is something not able to be explained by physical laws whatever its origin is. But it shall be said that Psychoanalytical explanation for ethical has a deep scientific base and this base is according to physical laws in our brains.

  10. Mark Sloan says:

    javier rodriguez de rivera
    As I described in my post, the “deep ethical sense in all human societies” is fully explained as being selected for by the benefits of cooperation that ethical sense motivates. The cooperation strategies that enable sustainably being able to maintain those benefits (and are the core of what makes us the incredibly successful social animals we are) are as deeply rooted in the architecture of our reality as any physics.

    But science was not first with this idea.

    About 2500 years ago, the pre-Socratic philosopher Protagoras patiently explained to Socrates that the function (the primary reason it exists) of our moral sense and morality is to increase the benefits of cooperation in groups. Unfortunately, Socrates rejected Protagoras’s view, perhaps as being too commonplace (what the common people thought at the time). That was the start of the still on-going confusion about morality.

    You might read what Protagoras told Socrates, see Plato’s dialog of the same name. At least the ancient Greek common people once knew what morality ‘is’. We just forgot.

  11. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    Thanks for your answer.I will read the Plato´s Protagoras.I fully agree that cooperation towards common benefits is the goal of moral based on a rational about the good, which can be named as ethic. That does not required an external authority, God or whatever.More, not fully proved but well said by Freud the need of cooperation is the origin of ethic in human social communities in its evolution.
    As Kant said : two things produce admiration the Sky over our heads and the deep ethical sense inside us…I always though philosophers shall study Physics , Presocratics started thinking about the Universe.What do you think about Anaxagoras sentence? for me it touch aspects of modern Physics, time and space.

  12. marten says:

    Caring: don’t fail to read The New Prime (Jack Vance). Might be of help on November 8th.

  13. Mark Sloan says:

    javier rodriguez de rivera
    Well, Anaxagoras was looking for non-supernatural explanations of the sun, moon, nutrition and growth, so forth, and in doing so was thinking like a modern scientist. But more interesting to me, we can look to a modern understanding of morality as cooperation strategies to explain both why the Athenians thought he deserved punishment for “Impropriety” and how he could escape that punishment by exile.

    Marker (or tag) cooperation strategies (showing membership in a cooperative in-group) can be particularly powerful game theory strategies in hostile environments such as the Athenians experienced (and as people have for most of our evolutionary history). Due to our evolutionary history, loyalty to our in-group, motivation to punish disloyalty, and hostility to out-groups can be powerful motivating emotions as we commonly see at on display in war and at football games.

    Religion is a two-for-one cooperation strategy in that adherence is first a marker of membership in a reliable in-group and, second, there are often supernatural punishments of ‘immoral’ acts (punishment of bad behavior is necessary to preserve cooperation). By rejecting those religious beliefs, Anaxagoras rejected membership in an in-group, was disloyal, and deserved punishment. By exiling himself, he would no longer be able to corrupt the rest of the in-group (and might corrupt out groups – a good thing) and could escape punishment.

    Anaxagoras’ trial and escape were all about our emotional reaction to acting against the in-group and how that threat could be eliminated – by exile.

  14. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    Mark
    I first shall apologize and regret for a mistake I did. I was thinking in Anaximandro´s Sentence when referring to Space and Time and I wrotte Anaxagoras instead (much later one presocratic).But anyway what you comment about Anaxagoras is of the interest watching what happens today with religious believes and the science, it did happened already 2500 years ago.
    Thanks for your answer.Physics in Presocratics is fascinating.
    Javier Rodriguez de Rivera

  15. vicp says:

    No man is an island. From the computer you are using to the room and furniture you are sitting on, all of them were created through some form of group cooperation. Even if you are engaged in some form of corrupt behavior, your brain is doing exactly what it was evolved to do, namely function as a social organ. If you were an individual who singularly existed and survived the ages of this planet, well we know who he would be and religions are a great manifestation of our sociology or the social brain.

    Leading meaningful lives are important, but the biggest aspect of meaningfulness is social relationships. Even an introvert or intellectual engages in social interaction through hobbies and of course reading. Man’s number one priority was not meaning but surviving nature. The creation of civilization created other problems like plagues, tragic death, criminal behavior etc. which religion played a major role in regulating and giving hope and consolation. Science and learning itself were the outgrowth of organized religions which dominated up until a few centuries ago.

    The social brain is the key that unlocks a lot of complexity, even science itself.

  16. Bill Bauer says:

    Sean,

    I do appreciate that you bring a hard science attitude to these philosophical questions in that a great deal of so called “analytic” Philosophy is still engaged in these debates that are DOA. “Consciousness” and “everything else” in this Universe arises/emerges from particles and the laws of physics. There is nothing outside of this. Other stuff like ethics are just arbitrary. Not that they aren’t important but the ought is not going to be found in physics. Like a system of government, you just have to design what works best for your situation. Other metaphysical stuff are just ill defined and so you can’t intelligently address the issue. I don’t separate theology from physics. I just say theology is ill defined bullshit so you might as well be babbling random sounds when you engage in theological discussion. Why not call out bullshit and stop legitimizing it by giving it a separate category, by saying it’s a theological issue? You’re too much of a gentleman to do that. I’m not quite there.

  17. Mark S. says:

    Here is an interesting talk on the nature/nurture aspect of morals. Reminds me of relationships and the saying that love (i.e, attraction) may get a relationship going but it is never enough for a good relationship.

    A Defense of Evolutionary Ethics:
    https://youtu.be/97cWhhsMnnU

  18. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    Bill
    To say that ethic is arbitrary is an assert completlily lacking a rational base , although since Kant ethic is no longuer a religious matter, and rational about ethic is a problem not solved, only thing you can not say is that it is arbitrary.Laws and Rights are all derived from ethical ideas. But this not a philosophy forum.
    In agreement that everything in nature is under nature law, during the last two centuries all philosophers agree that the nature of religious believes and feelings are not under the scope of philosophy ans less science. Major philosophers such as Wittgenstein as as well did Nietsche, admit that the idea of Trascendence is some thing out of philosophy reach , but can not just be neglected.
    When talking about concrete “theology”, if science and philosophy can not discuss about religion due to its different field, categhory or scopes , none concrete theology can talk about science and philosophy , although continuosly they did.The conflicts between ethic and religions in our multicultural societies is another matter out of the scope of this forum. So better not to make same mistake. You can not play football in a tennis court. Just remind Le Maitre, the jesuist who first talk about Big Bang and told the Pope not to extract consequences of that to justify the religious idea of creation of the World. I wish tha science advance in clarifying our brain functioning as it has happened during last 15 years ir will surely help understanding ethic behaviors in different societies.

  19. Ray Stockton says:

    I quite strongly but respectfully disagree with the small excerpt that what is does not determine what ought. Science whether complete or not with the discovery phase does tell us quite clearly that a specific body of facts exists and these facts are the truth about all that exists. The dilemma of our situation is that the propagation of ignorance must stop. When we as a species accept what is really true and therefore abandon ridiculous supernatural ideologies, it will be clear that non-toxic cooperative living is the only viable solution to all of the problems we have brought on ourselves and the remaining inhabitants of our world. Science has already made clear that we are by no means special nor is our world, but science has, does, and will continue to teach us what is necessary to exist for as long as the earth exists at a life conducive distance from our star. Who knows what will be possible when we finally arrive at a full understanding of gravity, but that’s a lot more than I intended to cover in this trite response. So I assert that truth does yield guidelines urging our species to stop being selfish by intellectually maturing to being not just self aware but also impact aware. Truth reveals that global cooperative living is not only possible but absolutely necessary or as we are painfully aware a mass extinction event will occur. Education in truth is the first necessary step and when all operate on the same set of actual facts, morality is obvious. Commit no wasteful harm. Aid rather than oppress for single species or person benefit. Even during this period of scientific discovery being incomplete, the previous guidelines for our species is undeniably clear. Fortunately, our species does show a slow but definite trend for making more good decisions than bad despite the appearance of the state of things when viewed within the narrow focus of a single human lifetime. Obviously I am not a formally trained scholar but perhaps that can be the hope anyone takes from my response. Even the non-elites are becoming aware and some of us actually understand and accept how important science is to the survival of all life. The importance of caring for ones other than ourselves can only be fully understood by the facts found and to be found by science. Well now I feel that I am rambling on a soap box. Thanks for a place to voice rational thought with others of a similar desire for a reality led world without an audience full of constant profound ignorance as the responses.

  20. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    Ray
    I fully share your views about cooperative ethics and more I am of the believe that evolution of human societies has created the ethic inside our brain and feelings as a must for survival of the community. You are saying that education in the truth and no nonsense is the way , knowing more of nature will undoubtly influence not only our way of life but our thinking and so the way to give answer to ethics question.
    But jumping from what is to what ough to be is lacking logic and more , it implies to deny liberty of human being.What ought to be is a matter of freedom that is ethic if in accordance with…??? Here is the problem of ethic to establish a rational , not dictated by a God, and looking for the good , and here we enter in the problem of saying what is the good. Philosophers from Kant’s new point of view, after centuries with the answer given by Aristoteles , are during the last centuries looking for answers that nowadays are controvesial, in my opinion there are valid answers both in liberals, communitarism, or other schools nowadays, and in each applied ethics to each particular field a new answer according to new situation generated by technologies changing our lives, shall be founded and choosen and there the ough to be is a choice taken in freedom and not determined by science ,” what is”. The most known examples are in the field of bioethics as an example with the possibility of cloning people with the human genoma….

  21. Rhett says:

    Sean,
    As mentioned in other comments (too many perhaps, but really enjoying the process of taking this work in), I find it interesting that a few of the reviews I have read were sort of poo-pooing the mingling of science and philosophy or also the lack of concrete, final answers from all of this.

    But, again, I think your approach is ever so effective and ever so needed today. Laying the foundation of establishing what we really know and what reality actually is is so important.

    Then from there, of course there are no specific final answers, it doesn’t work that way. But what you can develop are “best practices” for living life. And these all flow pretty well from the foundations of reality.

    I mean, that’s it… Absolutes may not be all they are cracked up to be, so people perhaps shouldn’t complain when we don’t have them. But best practices can move the ball pretty far down the field of living a good life that also allows others to live their best lives…

    Thanks!

  22. peter b says:

    Sean, I love your work!
    One point you mention regarding the implications of finitude of life as being meaningless is interesting:
    “The finitude of life doesn’t imply that it’s meaningless, any more than obeying the laws of physics implies that we can’t find purpose and joy within the natural world.”
    It seems to me rather meaningless to live in an infinite afterlife, if such a thing would exist. It is as if I would be playing a computer game in “god mode”, with infinite time and infinite resources… having the unlimited attempts of trial&errors coping with any challenges and knowing that if I fail, I can always restart the mission and win later.
    I think it is precisely the limited nature of our of lives that can somehow provide us with a meaning…

  23. Ray Stockton says:

    Javier
    I understand your concern for issues such as human cloning and at this point in human evolution, I agree cloning is a potent ethical dilemma which science cannot yet answer. I would argue that is it simply due to the lack of a perfect understanding of the incredibly complex biochemistry. Like most of our ethics, understanding what is good for all will evolve, as it always has, over a great deal more time as our knowledge evolves. As we get closer and closer to finding and fully understanding the smallest particles that govern the universe, we are also finding that true free will is just an illusion. Biology is governed by the laws of chemistry and chemistry by the laws of physics. After all, we cannot expect iron to behave like hydrogen no matter what we do to either. As an example in human life, we cannot with any good conscious tell our children anymore that they can be anything they want to be due to the limits imposed by the child’s biochemistry. No matter how much desire a genius level physicist has to also be an Olympic gymnast, it is highly improbable that both goals will be realized and not due to a lack of commitment or time. the chemistry just won’t allow it in most cases. I realize that the level of understanding that I’m talking about is a very long way from our current state and it will only be then that science will, by natural consequence, reveal what is truly right for all. Am I forecasting a “brave new world” condition, no, but when true understanding is held by the whole population, understanding what appropriate sustainable behavior is will be inevitable and undeniable. As for now and for many years to come, I agree that we are just muttling through the confusion as best we can and science cannot yet fully determine what is ethical in a lot of situations. Making an effort to work together for the good of all species is the best derived rule that we can have at this point. As long as we follow the trajectory of working together we will someday get to the right place ethically. Belief is independent of truth and the examples abound. So a bit more clearly this time, I assert that the choice will be obvious because of science not that science will be a dictator in the current human government sense, but as a natural consequence of factual knowledge. Thank you Javier for your thoughtful response. I look forward to your next response. Being that I do not have many educated or well read friends, it is a joy to have this conversation and chance to learn new concepts. Philosophy is a fascinating body of knowledge forging the way we think, which I am largely unfamiliar with, though I do at least recognize Kant and Socrates. Even though I take strong stances, I mean no offense and truly do look forward to more conversation. Who knows, out in the open conversations like this may contribute to helping push us humans in a harmonious direction.

  24. javier rodriguez de rivera says:

    Ray
    I feel some shame due to my poor english, and enjoy reading yours.Really I agree practically in everything you say.I am just an old aeronautical engineer restudying new phisics and studying now at Philosophy University.Why I give this information? because I as well thing that we are a product of the nature, but able to study the nature with our reason.But equally that from a quantum scenario, other scenarios arise, from inside cerebral relations (physical, chemical, electromagnetic, or whatever) it appear some thing that the same cerebral entity analyze, and structure with its rationality and logic (but only if the Language express it ), including the science.
    I do not believe in cause-effect logic (some philosophers have already deny any meaning to the cause-effect concept ) , as in science facts happens in a given way according to what we call physical laws.To say that rationality is something that happen according to physical laws is not the same that to say rationality is under physical laws.We might describe what is the physical reality of a given thought , idea, or logical proccess, but what I am trying to study is, if thoughts implies something above or in a different , let say, space or dimension of what we call and understand nowadays by physic.
    But it might be that the conclusion is that philosophycal proccesses shall as well be called Physics. Two books one of Eric Kandell In search of Memory , and another. The Quart and the Jaguar by Murray Gell Mann, both ilustrate this perspective, I recommend you to read both.But the nature of philosophycal beings, and the nature and structure of the thoughts are of a diferent category than physical laws.To say that this category of reality will become physic as we understand physic today has no logic in my view, but to say that a more comprehensive concept of physic may include in the future both levels: the physical substratum of thoughts and the thoughs, it is for me a valid hyphotesis. If solved, liberty and freedom may be linked to aparently aleatory facts in quantum physics.

    It means, the look for the ultimate Philosophyc Being it is the look for what it is at the bottom of all nature laws, both matters inside nature.