Red:Redness::Synchronic:Diachronic:Descriptive:Empiric Is this helpful
when seen in light of my reduction of evolution, physiology, homeostasis,
consciousness, Consciousness and Cosmology?
On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:14 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Brent et alia, I'll attempt to create a 'dialogue' by inserting my
> responses into your email in brackets.
>
> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way back
> to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.
>
>
>
> Ah, that all helps at least get me started better understanding all you
> know. Also “Terminal Addition” is a new, very interesting and useful
> concept. It is fun when we find ways to interface very diverse fields.
> You know a lot of stuff I have no idea of.
>
>
> [And you know a lot I don't too.....hope we can put our 'heads together']
>
>
>
> I also wasn’t aware of the terms “synchronically” and “diachronically”,
> but those terms help, immensely, with a notion I’ve been struggling with
> how to describe. The original “Inverted spectrum” argument was formulated
> by John Lock as “imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some
> unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted.”. I now I
> can point out the diachronic attribute of this argument, comparing the
> times before and after you wake up with things being inverted. But that
> throws all kinds of complicating issues into the argument, such as, does
> your memory of red change also….?” So, I guess I can now more easily
> encourage people to simplify things by thinking synchronically,
> experiencing redness, together with a reference redness computationally
> bound. Then redness changes to greenness, very different from the same
> reference that has not changed. And there is also the absurd "inverted
> spectrum" notion that people describe the qualia changing, but they
> physics staying the same, which of course confuses everyone, significantly.
>
>
> [As I was reading about the 'inverted spectrum' I was thinking about how
> different organisms see in different ranges of the light spectrum, yet we
> all exist in the same physical space. So isn't it a matter of adapting in
> what ever way each organism does based on the nature of their physiology?
> Are you familiar with David Bohm, the physicist. In his book "Wholeness and
> the Implicate Order" he argues that what we think of as 'reality' is how
> our subjectively evolved senses represent it to us, or what he refers to as
> the Explicate Order. However, the actual reality exists in tandem as the
> Implicate Order. My sense is that as a species we are moving further and
> further away from the Explicate and closer and closer to the Implicate
> Order over human history, aided by Science as the way in which we 'know
> what we don't know'.]
>
>
>
> I may be mistaken, but you appear to be still missing another important
> notion about the psychology of perception. Normally, we use the term “red”
> in an ambiguous way, known as “naive realism”. We are born thinking there
> is only one physical quality, the quality of the surface of the strawberry.
>
>
>
> But perception is about two sets of physical qualities:
>
>
>
> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation, the
> initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a strawberry reflects
> 650 NM (red) light).
> 2. The physical properties of the final results of the perception
> process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our brain we
> experience as *redness*.
>
>
>
> So, when you just use the term “red” it is hard to know which of the above
> you are talking about. So, I use “red” for #1, and *redness* for #2. We
> only know of #1, with abstract descriptions, like the word red. We have no
> idea if the strawberry has a real physical quality, we should be
> interpreting our abstract descriptions of the strawberry (like the word
> red), as having. That is why in images like this, the strawberry is always
> portrayed with black and white. Who's is the real redness?
>
>
> [image: image.png]
>
>
>
> Many people, when they first realize this, it is a profound life changing
> religious experience. I remember having this life changing experience in
> an undergraduate class on AI.
>
>
> [Perhaps what you are describing is a corollary of that Explicate to
> Implicate progression? In fact, since my laboratory does epigenetic
> research studying the inheritance of asthma from the environment, I have
> changed my way of thinking about what 'phenotype' means. I don't think it
> is the description of attributes, it is actually how epigenetic inheritance
> acts to actively obtain what are called epigenetic 'marks' from the
> environment. That is to say the way epigenetic inheritance occurs is
> through the direct acquisition of those marks from the environment, which
> then enter the organism and modify the DNA of the egg and sperm through an
> unknown mechanism by which such marks are either retained or gotten rid of
> during meiosis. The retained marks then alter the phenotype of the
> offspring in ways that optimize the subsequent interactions of the
> offspring with their environment. I can see how there could be an
> epigenetic mechanism for transitioning from seeing red to seeing redness
> via such a mechanism, for example]
>
>
>
> This provides a powerful explanation of phantom limb pain which you
> mentioned. The pain isn’t in your toe #1, it is in your knowledge of your
> toe, #2, which of course is in your brain. And when you amputate your toe,
> you don’t amputate your knowledge of your toe, nor the pain, which still
> exists in your brain #2, as a composite conscious experience. The pain
> just no longer has a referent in realty, #1. So, the pain seems to be an
> inaccurate phantom pain.
>
>
> [This should also hold for the peripheral nervous system and all those
> connections too, right?]
>
>
>
> This is like the way we have knowledge #2 of our skull, inside it’s
> referent, our real skull, #1. We also have a knowledge of a “spirit” #2,
> represented as residing inside our knowledge of our skull, looking out of
> our knowledge of our eyes, again all composite #2 consciousness. Our
> knowledge of our spirit #2, just doesn’t have a referent that ever existed
> in #1 reality.
>
> [But all due respect, perhaps #1 and #2 are physiologic and cosmologic
> levels, respectively, which when integrated due to their common origins in
> the Singularity generate what we think of as mind. Spinoza said that the
> mind is the brain's idea of the body. I think he was right but it was
> inductive not deductive, whereas I am offering an evidence-based way to
> think about the interrelationship between evolution, physiology and
> Cosmology as one integrated whole]
>
>
> I hope you are finding this as constructive as I am. We seem to have found
> 'common ground'.....do you think we've hit on a way forward?
>
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:49 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>>
>>
>> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way
>> back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ah, that all helps at least get me started better understanding all you
>> know. Also “Terminal Addition” is a new, very interesting and useful
>> concept. It is fun when we find ways to interface very diverse fields.
>> You know a lot of stuff I have no idea of.
>>
>>
>>
>> I also wasn’t aware of the terms “synchronically” and “diachronically”,
>> but those terms help, immensely, with a notion I’ve been struggling with
>> how to describe. The original “Inverted spectrum” argument was formulated
>> by John Lock as “imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some
>> unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted.”. I now I
>> can point out the diachronic attribute of this argument, comparing the
>> times before and after you wake up with things being inverted. But that
>> throws all kinds of complicating issues into the argument, such as, does
>> your memory of red change also….?” So, I guess I can now more easily
>> encourage people to simplify things by thinking synchronically,
>> experiencing redness, together with a reference redness computationally
>> bound. Then redness changes to greenness, very different from the same
>> reference that has not changed. And there is also the absurd "inverted
>> spectrum" notion that people describe the qualia changing, but they
>> physics staying the same, which of course confuses everyone, significantly.
>>
>>
>>
>> I may be mistaken, but you appear to be still missing another important
>> notion about the psychology of perception. Normally, we use the term “red”
>> in an ambiguous way, known as “naive realism”. We are born thinking there
>> is only one physical quality, the quality of the surface of the strawberry.
>>
>>
>>
>> But perception is about two sets of physical qualities:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation,
>> the initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a strawberry
>> reflects 650 NM (red) light).
>> 2. The physical properties of the final results of the perception
>> process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our brain we
>> experience as *redness*.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, when you just use the term “red” it is hard to know which of the
>> above you are talking about. So, I use “red” for #1, and *redness* for
>> #2. We only know of #1, with abstract descriptions, like the word red. We
>> have no idea if the strawberry has a real physical quality, we should be
>> interpreting our abstract descriptions of the strawberry (like the word
>> red), as having. That is why in images like this, the strawberry is always
>> portrayed with black and white. Who's is the real redness?
>>
>>
>> [image: image.png]
>>
>>
>>
>> Many people, when they first realize this, it is a profound life changing
>> religious experience. I remember having this life changing experience in
>> an undergraduate class on AI.
>>
>>
>>
>> This provides a powerful explanation of phantom limb pain which you
>> mentioned. The pain isn’t in your toe #1, it is in your knowledge of your
>> toe, #2, which of course is in your brain. And when you amputate your toe,
>> you don’t amputate your knowledge of your toe, nor the pain, which still
>> exists in your brain #2, as a composite conscious experience. The pain
>> just no longer has a referent in realty, #1. So, the pain seems to be an
>> inaccurate phantom pain.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is like the way we have knowledge #2 of our skull, inside it’s
>> referent, our real skull, #1. We also have a knowledge of a “spirit” #2,
>> represented as residing inside our knowledge of our skull, looking out of
>> our knowledge of our eyes, again all composite #2 consciousness. Our
>> knowledge of our spirit #2, just doesn’t have a referent that ever existed
>> in #1 reality.
>>
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:35 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Brent et alia, I would like to interject my replies in brackets, as if
>>> we were having a conversation, as follows:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I’m having troubles integrating what you are saying into my view of the
>>> world.
>>>
>>> [I am not surprised, since mine is a contrarian perspective on
>>> evolution, based on a cellular-molecular approach largely based on an
>>> embyologic developmental approach based on cell-cell communications
>>> mediated by soluble growth factors and receptors, not on reproductive
>>> success of the adults due to Descent with Modification, Natural Selection
>>> and Survival of the Fittest, all of which are metaphors that cannot be
>>> tested experimentally, nor have they been. My approach, on the other hand
>>> is totally based on hard evidence for development of structure and
>>> function, including genetic manipulations showing the causal relationships.]
>>>
>>> Things like “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it”
>>> doesn’t seem to fit. For me, the big problem is that people tend to think
>>> of “Consciousness” (or consciousness?) as a singular thing. Pan-psychism,
>>> at best talks about elemental matter having “proto-psychism” or something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To me, Consciousness, free will, self-awareness, intentionality, love...
>>> (and consciousness?) are all composite things composed of lots of stuff.
>>> To me, qualia or physical qualities are elemental things out of which all
>>> these composite things are constructed. When we are consciously aware of a
>>> strawberry, we have knowledge represented by elemental redness and
>>> greenness physical qualities, representing the strawberry. Physical
>>> qualities are elemental standalone things, which can be computationally
>>> bound together to become our composite knowledge of the strawberry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [It only seems like such things can be computed because they are
>>> described synchronically in the same space and time. However, it is only
>>> when you identify the underlying mechanisms involved diachronically across
>>> space and time that the true nature of Nature is revealed. And by the way,
>>> the same is true for chemistry. The genius of Mendeleev’s Periodic Table of
>>> Elements was that he took into account the chemical reactions and products
>>> for any given element in order to position it, offering experimental data
>>> that transcend space and time. I have done the same for evolutionary
>>> biology by invoking experimental evidence for the evolution of physiologic
>>> traits]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The computational binding which provides “situational awareness” of
>>> what we need to do to pick the red things, while avoiding the green things
>>> is also something additional. Would I be correct in thinking that matter
>>> which has a redness quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it?
>>>
>>> [Well this is a complicated issue, as we both know. I would like to
>>> start by thanking you for not just dismissing me out of hand because I am
>>> coming from outter space, literally, to understand what Consciousness
>>> actually constitutes. I honestly had no intention of grappling with such
>>> questions, but my research of 50 years duration dragged me down this
>>> ‘rabbit hole’. But in saying that I have to now get up on my soap box and
>>> state that we are at a stage in human knowledge and science when
>>> instruments can no longer provide answers to big questions like *what
>>> is evolution?, What is Consciousness?, What is Free Will?* I think we
>>> need to take the huge volumes of information we are generating and exploit
>>> them to understand such big picture issues. Particularly because Biology
>>> remains a *descriptive science*, unlike Chemistry and Physics, which
>>> have central theories and Laws. All biology has is the dogma of
>>> “DNA-RNA-Protein”. As a result, for example, there is literally no
>>> experimental evidence for evolutionary biology other than the limited
>>> examples that I and my colleagues have provided.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But back to your question about whether matter which has a redness
>>> quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it? I would resoundingly
>>> say ‘YES”. The consensus is that life evolved by endogenizing environmental
>>> factors that historically posed an existential threat, such as heavy
>>> metals, ions, gases, bacteria. Heavy metals are a prime example because
>>> iron, which is a powerful oxidizing agent, was endogenized and made
>>> physiologically useful by incorporating it into heme protein for oxygen
>>> transport in red blood cells. There are classic examples for all of the
>>> others too, but the ‘iron is our friend’ example will suffice, I think. But
>>> of course we’re more interested in multicellular organisms like ourselves
>>> when it comes to choosing red matter over green matter. That happened about
>>> 500 million years ago when bacteria and our unicellular forebears,
>>> eukaryotes with true nuclei, evolved. This was due to competition between
>>> bacteria and eukaryotes, the bacteria having devised pseudo-mutlicellular
>>> traits like biofilms and quorum sensing. In order to compete, the
>>> eukaryotes evolved cell-cell communication mechanisms for metabolic
>>> cooperativity. Those cell-cell communications, mediated by soluble growth
>>> factors formed the mechanistic basis for embryologic development. And
>>> because I and my colleagues had generated enough mechanistic data over the
>>> last 50 years for the development of the mammalian lung, and the lungs of
>>> other vertebrates at the cellular-molecular level, it offered the
>>> opportunity to reverse-engineer the phylogenetic history of the lung from
>>> mammals and birds, back to the swim bladder of fish based on experimental
>>> evidence at each step of the way in both the forward and backward
>>> direction. At that point, the process was clearly all about how lipids have
>>> evolved to facilitate oxygen uptake by cells as the principle mechanism
>>> underlying lung evolution. That insight allowed tracing lung evolution all
>>> the way back to the unicellular state when cholesterol began being
>>> synthesized….Conrad Bloch had rationalized that since it takes 11 atoms of
>>> oxygen to make one molecule of cholesterol, that there had to have been
>>> enough oxygen in the atmosphere to do so, which would have been about 500
>>> million years ago, when vertebrate evolution began. The insertion of
>>> cholesterol in the cell membrane of primordial eukaryotes was the
>>> ‘catalyst’ for vertebrate evolution because it ‘thinned’ the cell membrane
>>> out, facilitating gas exchange, oxidative metabolism and locomotion
>>> (cytoplasmic streaming). As it happens, these are the three principle
>>> physiologic traits for vertebrate evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But that still begged the question as to what the pre-adaptation for the
>>> formation of cells was as the origin of life, serial pre-adaptations or
>>> exaptations being the underlying principle behind evolution. In my
>>> reduction, the only existing prototype for a ‘singularity’ like the
>>> primordial cell, which formed from the lipids embedded in the snowball-like
>>> asteroids that pelted the atmosphereless earth to form the oceans (accepted
>>> scenario for the origins of life based on empiric data), was the
>>> Singularity that is hypothesized to have existed prior to the Big Bang. And
>>> by the way, lipids immersed in water will spontaneously form what are
>>> called micelles, spheroids formed from semi-permeable lipid membranes. When
>>> such micelles were heated by the Sun they liquified and deformed, but at
>>> night they cooled and reformed due to hysteresis, or ‘molecular memory’
>>> unique to lipids. That memory was essential for evolution because in order
>>> to do so you have to remember where you came from in order to evolve new
>>> traits under environmental constraints.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So the picture I have painted is one in which the origins of the Cosmos
>>> are the building blocks of life as one continuum. And as such, biology must
>>> comply with the Laws of Nature because they are innate to life- there are
>>> strong homologies between Quantum Mechanics and the First Principles of
>>> Physiology. So our physiology is derived from Cosmology.
>>>
>>> So back to eating red v green strawberries, our ancestors learned the
>>> hard way that green fruit made them ill, which became an epigenetically
>>> inherited trait due to the damage of acid reflux to the esophagus and
>>> lungs. So either environmentally being told by parents not to eat green
>>> strawberries or learning the hard way, selecting the red strawberries was a
>>> survival advantage. But the ability to digest ripe vs unripe fruit is a
>>> function of gut enzymes that evolved in support of metabolic success that
>>> refers all the way back to land adaptation when numerous genes mutated and
>>> replicated, mitigating against the physiologic stress of transitioning from
>>> water to land because the Greenhouse effect due to accumulation of carbon
>>> dioxide in the atmosphere caused drying up of water, forcing boney fish
>>> onto land.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way
>>> back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> You also said: “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we
>>> just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like Chalmer’s ‘hard
>>> problem’…)". I also can’t find a way to integrate statements like that
>>> into the way I see the world. To me, Chalmers struggles defining what is
>>> and isn’t part of the hard problem. But to me, it is only what Joseph
>>> Levine calls the “explanatory gap”. The normal scientific methods is
>>> constructing models of various parts of reality that appear to have
>>> utility, then working to falsify them. If you can do that, then it is part
>>> of the easy problem. It seems we can conceive of how we might test such
>>> models as animating cosmic blueprints, but perhaps this is just more
>>> evidence that I don’t know what you mean by that. Whatever it is, if we
>>> can conceive of ways to verify or falsify such, it is, to me, just an easy
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Even Joseph Levine has troubles defining exactly what he means by the
>>> “explanatory gap”. To me, it becomes clear if you provide an example. If
>>> you could make a statement like: “my redness is like your greenness” this
>>> would be an example of bridging the explanatory gap. The reason this is
>>> “hard”, is because we don’t really know what qualia are, and everyone
>>> considers qualia to be ineffable. We have no idea how would could falsify
>>> a statement like: “My redness is like your greenness” This lack of any
>>> ideas of how such might be falsified is the ONLY so-called hard problem.
>>> To me, everything else is easy, and we know how to approach it,
>>> scientifically.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If you google for solutions to the hard problem, there is an unending
>>> supply that will show up. But, to me, all these so-called solutions are
>>> all easily falsifiable, and hence easy problems – having nothing to do with
>>> the real “hard problem” – the qualitative nature of consciousness. To me,
>>> this is a clear symptom of the failure to clearly state what is and isn’t a
>>> hard problem and why.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a redness quale is simply a physical quality of some particular
>>> matter, we can be directly aware of, you can now finally falsify a “My
>>> redness is like your greenness” statement, by discovering which matter has
>>> a redness quality, and which matter does not. No more “hard” problems. At
>>> least that is the way I think about the world.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [I was not familiar with Levine’s ‘explanatory gap’, with apologies for
>>> my lack of knowledge in this regard, but I am not a psychologist, so I am
>>> learning myself, on the job as it were. At any rate I think I can provide a
>>> reasonable explanation for the ‘explanatory gap’ based on the concept of
>>> ‘Terminal Addition’. But before I do, I would like to state that this kind
>>> of confusion in biology about causation is due to what I stated at the
>>> outset, that biology remains descriptive, non-mechanistic, and as a result
>>> is built on associations and correlations, so of course the association of
>>> pain with injury is a disconnect because the ontology and epistemology are
>>> inconsistent.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Terminal Addition (
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reader.elsevier.com_reader_sd_pii_S0079610717302304-3Ftoken-3D8A42C40E500DA9AD1AD71F73CE09548DB524532789A37C44A54DCDE23193BB6C5B19391278867863D771991885CD4FFF&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=StcZ2etv8JSxxp2pWZu8939aqpWc8sroKQMGDokFT4o&s=FEGeY98vlul7hvVYdG0yjZFd0818Ea9meylSE0Ob04A&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reader.elsevier.com_reader_sd_pii_S0079610717302304-3Ftoken-3D8A42C40E500DA9AD1AD71F73CE09548DB524532789A37C44A54DCDE23193BB6C5B19391278867863D771991885CD4FFF&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0V5c_q9VtR34908rGK9WTgGae4Pk9Nt-RLF6zXwSpqk&s=VSRAYtzAa7q5wn5yjOauNQi3tVT1flVrjbVVH-mmswE&e=>
>>> ) is the observation that as traits evolve they appear at the end of a
>>> series of evolutionary changes, not at the beginning or somewhere in the
>>> middle. When seen as cell-cell interactions, mediated by growth factors and
>>> their cell-surface receptors, it is understandable that to insert a new
>>> trait other than at the terminus would be highly inefficient, forcing other
>>> collateral changes that have evolved over the course of evolution because
>>> the downstream intracellular signaling is complex. And it is this ‘wiring’
>>> that interconnects mechanisms of cellular damage with the feeling of pain,
>>> for example. The classic example is ‘phantom pain’, which I explained as
>>> the way in which the organism may have lost some trait, but must retain the
>>> ‘upstream’ signaling mechanism in order to sustain the other evolved traits
>>> and remain as ‘normal’ as possible in order to pass on its genetics
>>> reproductively.]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I genuinely hope that you will understand my explanations because they
>>> do resolve many dogmas in biology due to the descriptive nature of the
>>> discipline, which must change if we are to make progress in biology and
>>> medicine. I welcome criticism, further comments and queries.
>>>
>>> [image: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ssl.gstatic.com_ui_v1_icons_mail_images_cleardot.gif&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=StcZ2etv8JSxxp2pWZu8939aqpWc8sroKQMGDokFT4o&s=c7z6kF-i8S5Qwf6Jgdt450OzRvkFelccIRef2YJt9fI&e=]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:09 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m having troubles integrating what you are saying into my view of the
>>>> world. Things like “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it”
>>>> doesn’t seem to fit. For me, the big problem is that people tend to think
>>>> of “Consciousness” (or consciousness?) as a singular thing. Pan-psychism,
>>>> at best talks about elemental matter having “proto-psychism” or something.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To me, Consciousness, free will, self-awareness, intentionality,
>>>> love... (and consciousness?) are all composite things composed of lots of
>>>> stuff. To me, qualia or physical qualities are elemental things out of
>>>> which all these composite things are constructed. When we are consciously
>>>> aware of a strawberry, we have knowledge represented by elemental redness
>>>> and greenness physical qualities, representing the strawberry. Physical
>>>> qualities are elemental standalone things, which can be computationally
>>>> bound together to become our composite knowledge of the strawberry. The
>>>> computational binding which provides “situational awareness” of what we
>>>> need to do to pick the red things, while avoiding the green things is also
>>>> something additional. Would I be correct in thinking that matter which has
>>>> a redness quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You also said: “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we
>>>> just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like Chalmer’s ‘hard
>>>> problem’…)". I also can’t find a way to integrate statements like that
>>>> into the way I see the world. To me, Chalmers struggles defining what is
>>>> and isn’t part of the hard problem. But to me, it is only what Joseph
>>>> Levine calls the “explanatory gap”. The normal scientific methods is
>>>> constructing models of various parts of reality that appear to have
>>>> utility, then working to falsify them. If you can do that, then it is part
>>>> of the easy problem. It seems we can conceive of how we might test such
>>>> models as animating cosmic blueprints, but perhaps this is just more
>>>> evidence that I don’t know what you mean by that. Whatever it is, if we
>>>> can conceive of ways to verify or falsify such, it is, to me, just an easy
>>>> problem.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even Joseph Levine has troubles defining exactly what he means by the
>>>> “explanatory gap”. To me, it becomes clear if you provide an example. If
>>>> you could make a statement like: “my redness is like your greenness” this
>>>> would be an example of bridging the explanatory gap. The reason this is
>>>> “hard”, is because we don’t really know what qualia are, and everyone
>>>> considers qualia to be ineffable. We have no idea how would could falsify
>>>> a statement like: “My redness is like your greenness” This lack of any
>>>> ideas of how such might be falsified is the ONLY so-called hard problem.
>>>> To me, everything else is easy, and we know how to approach it,
>>>> scientifically.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you google for solutions to the hard problem, there is an unending
>>>> supply that will show up. But, to me, all these so-called solutions are
>>>> all easily falsifiable, and hence easy problems – having nothing to do with
>>>> the real “hard problem” – the qualitative nature of consciousness. To me,
>>>> this is a clear symptom of the failure to clearly state what is and isn’t a
>>>> hard problem and why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If a redness quale is simply a physical quality of some particular
>>>> matter, we can be directly aware of, you can now finally falsify a “My
>>>> redness is like your greenness” statement, by discovering which matter has
>>>> a redness quality, and which matter does not. No more “hard” problems. At
>>>> least that is the way I think about the world.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:48 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I like what Skinner said personally. If
>>>>> only it included the diachronic 'across space-time' component we'd be all
>>>>> set.....any thoughts? Maybe it's more like 'mindfulness'? jst
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just for clarity, my definition of “Mind” is the way the word has
>>>>>> emerged in radical behavioral and cognitive neuroscience circles. This is
>>>>>> perhaps most clearly captured in B. F. Skinner’s (1987) comment, as follows:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cognitive psychologists like to say that "the mind is what the brain
>>>>>> does," but surely the rest of the body plays a part. The mind is what the
>>>>>> body does. It is what the person does. In other words, it is behavior, and
>>>>>> that is what behaviorists have been saying for more than half a century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ‘Beingness’ is another term that comes to mind as potentially
>>>>>> referencing the Implicate Order (as in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:54 AM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's unfortunate that Mind already has a definition for you Gregg,
>>>>>> because it would have been a good term, to my way of thinking, for the
>>>>>> intersection of the Cosmological 'blueprint' and how our physiology
>>>>>> complies with it, like an computer operating system and the software that
>>>>>> utilizes it. Maybe a new term is needed? jst
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks, John.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am reminded that when I use the term Mind (capitalized) I am
>>>>>> referring to something very different when it is used by Descartes or many
>>>>>> others. Mind on the ToK corresponds to the dimension of animal behavior,
>>>>>> versus mind as human self-conscious reflection in many language games.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, your capitalizing Consciousness versus consciousness is important
>>>>>> as it does highlight that the terms are referencing two different things in
>>>>>> the universe.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 1:37 PM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gregg, I appreciate your point, and I think that it's the same
>>>>>> reason the Damasio took me to task when I met with him last Friday about my
>>>>>> use of the term Consciousness too. You are both clinicians, and to think of
>>>>>> Consciousness as 'one size fits all' is anathema to the way you have to
>>>>>> categorize mental health....BUT what I am addressing when I use the term
>>>>>> Consciousness is like the difference between Truth and Law, the latter
>>>>>> being a derivative of the former. I don't know if this will help, but I
>>>>>> have further refined my way of thinking about Consciousness. I now think
>>>>>> that Consciousness is the 'blueprint' of the Cosmos, animate and inanimate
>>>>>> alike because homeostasis undergirds all of matter as the 'equal and
>>>>>> opposite reaction' to the Big Bang....*without homeostasis there
>>>>>> would be no matter*, *only energy* (and btw this is concordant with
>>>>>> Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy' in that he too thought that
>>>>>> the primary state of being is energy, and that matter is merely a transient
>>>>>> state). And the way in which our physiology has evolved, endogenizing the
>>>>>> environment and compartmentalizing it is the way we perceive that
>>>>>> Consciousness 'blueprint' within us, but that's just our idiosyncratic way
>>>>>> of actualizing the Cosmologic for survival as a result of evolving
>>>>>> warm-bloodedness (and being bipedal, etc). Otherwise Consciousness is
>>>>>> pervasive throughout the material world as homeostasis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Put another way, Consciousness and consciousness are one and the same
>>>>>> in the Implicate Order.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So I don't distinguish non-conscious from conscious in the sense of
>>>>>> Consciousness because non-Consciousness is non-existent. What you are
>>>>>> referring to is the physiologic mechanism that prevails in REM sleep or
>>>>>> coma, for example. IMHO, this difference between Consicousness and
>>>>>> consciousness is important in deliberating about your TOK because it
>>>>>> addresses the ontology and epistemology of what life constitutes. In terms
>>>>>> of consciousness, the origins and means of knowing are not consistent,
>>>>>> whereas they are in terms of Consciousness. I hope that made sense because
>>>>>> you have touched on an important distinction between Consciousness and
>>>>>> consciousness, not to be semantic or argumentative, but to be clear. jst
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:49 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Great discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John, as a psychologist, I need a language game that differentiates
>>>>>> conscious from nonconscious activity. I am curious, how do you
>>>>>> conceptualize the “unconscious” or nonconscious or subconscious? For a
>>>>>> psychologist such as myself who uses consciousness to refer to subjective
>>>>>> experience of being in the world, which, say flickers off each night when I
>>>>>> sleep, I need to have words that refer to that activity beneath
>>>>>> subjective/perceptual awareness. (Note, this is *not *self-conscious
>>>>>> awareness, which is the “knowing that I know” thing).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS I refer to what you call consciousness in organisms as
>>>>>> “physiological functional awareness and responsiveness”. That is the kind
>>>>>> of awareness I see in cells and plants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PPS. Here is my blog on the meaning and problem of consciousness
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8eFl7R5jcqdh9GkvxqOVPMwgqGf8KGEIPw307jJf71k&s=oRuW40yCYWYZtjmkZVyfGVDUATGYZwsQumurS6UnRkk&e=>
>>>>>> in case that helps sort out the language game issues we might be having
>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:43 AM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Joe et al, thank you for the feed-back. I know that the language
>>>>>> unfortunately tends to get in the way when we talk across disciplines. My
>>>>>> hope is that we can overarch the semantic problem, and your response is
>>>>>> indicative of that. Having said that, the one key idea that I would like to
>>>>>> get across is that all 'material' existence is the product of the 'equal
>>>>>> and opposite reaction' to the Big Bang due to Newton's Third Law of Motion.
>>>>>> Without that, there would be no matter in the Cosmos, only energy (So for
>>>>>> example, Alfred North Whitehead theorized that the predominant 'process' is
>>>>>> energetic interactions, and that the material state is merely a transient
>>>>>> state of being). That 'equal and opposite reaction' is the origin of
>>>>>> homeostasis for both the biologic and non-biologic realms. In physics,
>>>>>> homeostasis is what produces balanced chemical reactions that form the
>>>>>> rocks and dirt that we live on. So all of the material Cosmos originates
>>>>>> from the same fundamental process. The core difference is that chemical
>>>>>> homeostasis leads to stasis or stability, whereas biologic homeostasis
>>>>>> allows for an on-going interactive 'dialogue' with the Cosmos, forming and
>>>>>> reforming in order to cope with the ever-changing environment through
>>>>>> direct epigenetic inheritance from the environment, or what we refer to as
>>>>>> Evolution. And to be clear, I think that it is the combination of evolution
>>>>>> as the endogenization of the external environment (see Lynn Margulis's
>>>>>> 'Endosymbiosis Theory') that forms our internal physiologic 'knowledge' of
>>>>>> the Cosmos/Natural Laws by compartmentalizing it and making it useful for
>>>>>> survival and perpetuation of the species. When that construct is combined
>>>>>> with our active dialogue with the environment, it generates what we think
>>>>>> of anthropomorphically as Consciousness. But to reiterate, all matter has
>>>>>> that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we just happen to take that blueprint
>>>>>> and animate it (like Chalmer's "hard problem", or the concept of
>>>>>> disembodied consciousness expressed by Andy Clark), but that's just who and
>>>>>> what we are as a species, no more, no less. Unfortunately, it also makes us
>>>>>> extremely Narcissistic because we are the only species that 'knows that we
>>>>>> know', which tends to innately strike fear of death into us, BUT that is
>>>>>> mitigated by the perpetual gaining of knowledge through the scientific
>>>>>> method. So in terms of David Bohm's expression of this in his book
>>>>>> "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as The Explicate Order, which is the
>>>>>> way we see things through our subjective senses, versus the Implicate
>>>>>> Order, which is the absolute true order of things, scientific knowledge
>>>>>> moves us ever further away from the Explicate Order, and toward the
>>>>>> Implicate Order. I hope that was helpful, and I welcome any and all
>>>>>> comments, criticisms, etc, etc in the spirit of constructive dialogue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Greetings from the frozen north John (et al.). Thank you for your
>>>>>> latest contributions. As ever, I find your work tremendously fascinating. I
>>>>>> think I largely agree with your argument. Maybe I'm just struggling with
>>>>>> the semantics in some ways. I fully agree with the linkage of energy to the
>>>>>> homeostatic processes and the various "survival" mechanisms in nature
>>>>>> across all forms of life. And I entirely agree with your argument about
>>>>>> cellular efforts to maintain information distinctiveness and energy
>>>>>> efficiencies, at least at the theoretical level (I have no applied
>>>>>> experience in the field beyond my novice attempts to study life through
>>>>>> microscopes as an undergraduate!). Perhaps it's just the fact that, apart
>>>>>> from our anthropomorphism, we have just conventionally used the term
>>>>>> "consciousness" in conjunction with the presence of the "mind" and mental
>>>>>> behavior. But if you're main argument, as I get used to the more complex
>>>>>> language you use to describe the biological processes, is that everything
>>>>>> biological - from the cellular to the organismic levels - responds to their
>>>>>> environments by deploying energy and processing information to maintain
>>>>>> organizational continuity (my wording) or homeostasis, then I agree fully.
>>>>>> And then, as you've indicated, you can define consciousness & intelligence
>>>>>> as linked to these processes as opposed to our usual link to the Mind or
>>>>>> "mental behavior." Or maybe I'm must over(under?)-thinking the argument!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing some of your latest work. I do think that
>>>>>> you and your colleagues have offered a fascinating argument about how to
>>>>>> conceptualize the "self" in an even grander fashion. With kind regards, -Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 1:54 PM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Gregg and Joe, thanks for sharing that clip from Amadeus. Based
>>>>>> on my own reduction of 'self' with Bill Miller (see attached; ideally to be
>>>>>> read in the context of 'The Singularity of Nature' (see attached), I think
>>>>>> that the transactional process between Salieri and Mozart required that
>>>>>> both had a strong sense of who they were, because if not, one would have
>>>>>> subsumed the other for lack of 'character strength' for lack of a better
>>>>>> term. Ideally, they would have struck a homeostatic 'balance' that you are
>>>>>> referring to as the + TGB SS. But ultimately I think we have to understand
>>>>>> the premise of 'how and why' we exist or this is all just sophistry. Why
>>>>>> homeostasis- because it is the mechanism that prevailed post-Big
>>>>>> Bang....the 'equal and opposite reaction that ascribes to Newton's Third
>>>>>> Law of Motion. I say that because without it there would be no matter, just
>>>>>> free, chaotic energy (Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy'). So
>>>>>> homeostasis is the universal principle behind all matter, inanimate and
>>>>>> animate alike. So that would suggest pan-psychism, which we agree seems
>>>>>> silly- a rock is not conscious, unless we are defining consciousness as
>>>>>> what we humans think it is, but is not. Cut to the chase, I think that we
>>>>>> misconstrue consciousness as being aware of ourselves and our surroundings,
>>>>>> but that is an anthropomorphism. All organisms are conscious, it's just a
>>>>>> function of their particular environment/Niche as to what it constitutes,
>>>>>> which is the endogenization of the external environment, forming physiology
>>>>>> by compartmentalizing those features of the Laws of Nature in order to
>>>>>> survive and remain in sync with The First Principles of Physiology, which
>>>>>> reference the Singularity prior to the Big Bang. So in other words
>>>>>> Consciousness is the way in which we and all matter connect with the Cosmos
>>>>>> as the entirety of the product of the Singularity/Big Bang. Only then will
>>>>>> we understand the + TGB SS, IMHO.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:02 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for sharing Gregg. Indeed, I had transcribed the words of the
>>>>>> clip and shared these because I thought it represented such an excellent
>>>>>> example of what the pursuit of the TGB looks like when, however fleetingly,
>>>>>> that occurs unfettered by all the trappings of one's ego. It's below zero
>>>>>> here (Fahrenheit), but I already have a warm feeling for the rest of the
>>>>>> day! Peace, -Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg -
>>>>>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 8:15 AM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe M and I were talking yesterday about the nature of Positive
>>>>>> True/Good/Beautiful Self-states (+ TGB SS), relative to Negative
>>>>>> False/Bad/Ugly Self-States (- FBU SS). He reminded me of the movie Amadeus,
>>>>>> and explained why it was such a great illustration of these dynamics
>>>>>> (although apparently the movie is not exactly an accurate portrayal of
>>>>>> Salieri’s actual relationship to Mozart). In the movie, Salieri struggles
>>>>>> with feelings of jealousy, envy and inadequacy, and at the same time, loves
>>>>>> the beauty of Mozart.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a great clip where he makes full contact with that side of
>>>>>> the equation and thus you can see and feel the + TGB SS flow…
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=StcZ2etv8JSxxp2pWZu8939aqpWc8sroKQMGDokFT4o&s=yvw0JFFyXidY1PWnuMiB9_6zTULwytkkulWNh3fglu4&e=
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> mozart salieri favorite - Yahoo Video Search Results
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> video.search.yahoo.com
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__video.search.yahoo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=felM6t-23shozx04zWWYuMYveYgVSLrmBcAdF8HJ0ls&s=41mXkwngbtuHsClipM7egoI1AAGfDEOhjHs9BjlCQwQ&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking
>>>>>> for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from
>>>>>> all across the Web.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks to Joe who pointed this out to me yesterday.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> 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
|
