Hi Brent, I'm afraid you, like the rest in Biology don't recognize that we
remain ensconced in descriptive science. Until I reduced evolution to
cell-cell signaling I was not aware of the systematic error being made
either. Not that it's all about me, but I do see value added in
understanding the origin and causation that have generated speciation. I
will answer your email in [brackets] as follows:

You’re not giving me enough to work with, in my effort to understand you,
I’ve made multiple efforts to restate what you are claiming, and that I
completely agree with everything you say.  But you refuse to try to
understand, or give any idea that you are trying to understand, why this is
still completely missing the point.


[see my opening comments. I have attache copies of our first two books on
cellular physiologic evolution fyi. Suffice it to say that I do understand
what you are saying, but that's why my understanding of Qualia deviates
from Representational Qualia Theory. I see Qualia in the same way that I
see the pre-adaptational mechanisms for the evolution of physiology, as a
re-interpretation of genes for new uses. That relationship seems to
correlate with Qualia IMHO]


There is a near unanimous “expert consensus
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=jU-ibMGFrPTYHJpWuJ7pm30laYYeQQW6izuFUU90n1M&e=>”
forming around “Representational Qualia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=xhPgoiXHacQQVgD40GwQkD0MvoT-uY8Uq6AY2qWsl_w&e=>”
over on Canonizer.com.  It is saying that people’s default understanding of
what the word “red” means (as defined in most dictionaries), and in the way
that you continue to use it, is the primary reason people think qualia are
“Ineffable”  why so many people agree we have an “Explanatory Gap
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Explanatory-5Fgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=-qN9bMTlI1SctcceW5j3lohfu7cCA5Jkj4CYnmzrW0M&e=>”
and a “hard problem” of consciousness.  You claim to know what qualia are,
but I see no evidence in anything you say, that you understand what qualia
are.


[For you to say that means to me that you don't understand my deconvolution
of physiology, because Qualia are a natural consequence of the vertical
integration of physiology, along with the historic relationships the
organism has experienced. That is particularly true when considering that
the brain/mind is the aggregate of that process, so of course perception is
affected by that cumulative process...seems logical to me]


 You claim to have a “diachronic” understanding of what consciousness is,
and again, I completely agree with you.  But thinking of consciousness in
this way, gives you know visibility into he qualitative nature of
consciousness, no insight in how to resolve any hard problems, or anything.


[Consider Hameroff and Penrose's theory of consciousness as the networking
of microtubules in the brain. The networking doesn't stop there because
virtually every cell in the body has microtubules, so consciousness is
holistic, not Cartesian. See one of several papers I have published on the
evolution of consciousness (attached) "From Cholesterol to Consciousness".
It doesn't get more 'vertical' than that.]


If you think you have a better way of understanding the qualitative nature
of consciousness, than described in “Representational Qualia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=xhPgoiXHacQQVgD40GwQkD0MvoT-uY8Uq6AY2qWsl_w&e=>”
and if we are making a mistake as you claim, then you should canonize your
view in a competing camp, to see if anyone else might agree with you and
support your camp.


[I thought my perspective was the minority view in Gregg's camp? or did I
misunderstand? Please advise.]




                                         Best, John

On Sun, Mar 17, 2019 at 11:54 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi John,
>
>
> You’re not giving me enough to work with, in my effort to understand you,
> I’ve made multiple efforts to restate what you are claiming, and that I
> completely agree with everything you say.  But you refuse to try to
> understand, or give any idea that you are trying to understand, why this is
> still completely missing the point.
>
>
> There is a near unanimous “expert consensus
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=jU-ibMGFrPTYHJpWuJ7pm30laYYeQQW6izuFUU90n1M&e=>”
> forming around “Representational Qualia Theory
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=xhPgoiXHacQQVgD40GwQkD0MvoT-uY8Uq6AY2qWsl_w&e=>”
> over on Canonizer.com.  It is saying that people’s default understanding of
> what the word “red” means (as defined in most dictionaries), and in the way
> that you continue to use it, is the primary reason people think qualia are
> “Ineffable”  why so many people agree we have an “Explanatory Gap
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Explanatory-5Fgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=-qN9bMTlI1SctcceW5j3lohfu7cCA5Jkj4CYnmzrW0M&e=>”
> and a “hard problem” of consciousness.  You claim to know what qualia are,
> but I see no evidence in anything you say, that you understand what qualia
> are.  You claim to have a “diachronic” understanding of what consciousness
> is, and again, I completely agree with you.  But thinking of consciousness
> in this way, gives you know visibility into he qualitative nature of
> consciousness, no insight in how to resolve any hard problems, or anything.
>
>
> If you think you have a better way of understanding the qualitative nature
> of consciousness, than described in “Representational Qualia Theory
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=aJ5p_W7KtazalSZgVlQ690czOvHDP8QBJCBinnBXepc&s=xhPgoiXHacQQVgD40GwQkD0MvoT-uY8Uq6AY2qWsl_w&e=>”
> and if we are making a mistake as you claim, then you should canonize your
> view in a competing camp, to see if anyone else might agree with you and
> support your camp.
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:54 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Brent, I honestly don't understand how you can say that the denotative
>> dictionary definition is 'wrong'. It may connote something different. And
>> as for my lack of understanding of the way you see Qualia, I think you make
>> the same systematic error that Etienne Roux talks about in the attached
>> paper on physiology as function. John
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:40 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Sorry, this e-mail should have been addressed to John, not Greg.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 10:37 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Greg,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 7:13 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> HI Brent, I essentially agree with your description of what Qualia are,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you do agree, then your thinking, or at least what you say about
>>>> many things, must have now changed.  For example, do you now understand how
>>>> the dictionary definition of red is wrong and qualia blind?  Do you now
>>>> understand how redness grenness qualia inverts (either natural or
>>>> engineered) are functionally and mechanistically identical, but physically
>>>> (and consciously) very qualitatively different.  If not, then you still do
>>>> not understand, let alone agree with, my description of what qualia are.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> but as I have said repeatedly, the only way to understand the
>>>>> mechanistic basis for Qualia, like that of physiology, is to delve into the
>>>>> 'history' of the strawberry over the course of the evolution of the
>>>>> organism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Again, this indicates that you do not yet understand.  Redness and
>>>> grenness are mechanistically identical, but qualitatively very different.
>>>> Either one can represent knowledge of red things in mechanistically
>>>> identical ways.  So, again, using your models, you can learn everything
>>>> about the mechanistic bases for qualia, while still completely missing
>>>> whether you are talking about the mechanistically identical redness or
>>>> grenness.
>>>>
>>>> Without doing that you will only show associations and correlations,
>>>>> not the origins and causation, which empowers prediction as the hallmark of
>>>>> a true scientific concept. John
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This statement also reveals how you don't yet understand what
>>>> qualitative physical qualities are.  Associations and correlations between
>>>> a redness experience, and the particular physics in the brain that has a
>>>> redness experience are the only thing important to modeling qualia, and
>>>> making predictions like are two people red green inverts or not.  The
>>>> origins and causations, have nothing to do with these kinds of predictions
>>>> about or objective observations discovering whether someone uses redness or
>>>> grenness to represent red things with.
>>>>
>>>> Sure your models handle, deal with, and predict a great many things
>>>> about the mechanisms of consciousness.  But they can tell us nothing about
>>>> whether someone is a red green invert, or not.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>> following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1