OK, here is the first version of the canonized definition of the ToK:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_207-2DTree-2Dof-2DKnowledge-2D-2D-2DToK-2D_1&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NPjNqYhSaMxNjgP95wBQ07aR2JugGbwtP3fjRf0L7JM&s=BLHVWmf_iogxLhZi78KwBYciN3NWH9T9DMVkrkhCcJI&e=
On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:13 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> Oh, got it.
> So if everyone is OK with the camp names and statements, as specified in
> thijs google doc:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NPjNqYhSaMxNjgP95wBQ07aR2JugGbwtP3fjRf0L7JM&s=l_rL8V0jTmnfwRLuYx6AMiJPfopEETt3uptQkaqK8OU&e=
> I will go ahead and create the topic, with these camps.
>
> Thanks.
>
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 11:41 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Brent, I had previously signed in as a camp supporter, and have done so
>> again....if I'm not 'registering let me know...Best, John
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:52 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> John and everyone,
>>>
>>> It looks like we are ready to canonize the topic for the ToK definition:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NPjNqYhSaMxNjgP95wBQ07aR2JugGbwtP3fjRf0L7JM&s=xK3ebht5jaMU1CbhZblTo2Fjn_ZfUWjdjoWUHX2yB4Y&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kQP3BSaDeho7MB3rJuGEh1DoIVtnGR290wBU7t189xo&s=_z6G8G22KyYzWjW4GKx39oHv75HgnHXWtT3EHwGi6XQ&e=>
>>>
>>> But john, I haven't seen you list your name as a supporter for your camp
>>> now titled: First Principles Formulation.
>>>
>>> Are you OK with the current camp name and statement? And once it is
>>> created on Canonizer.com, are you willing to support that camp? By
>>> default, unsupported camps are filtered out. So if someone doesn't support
>>> it, it won't show up.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:20 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I noticed Gregg added explicit support to both the child camp and the
>>>> parent super camp. This isn't necessary, as when you explicitly join a
>>>> camp, you already implicitly support (and are counted in) all parent camps,
>>>> up to and including the agreement root camp.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:11 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, Yes, looking nice!
>>>>>
>>>>> The supporters of the camps are the ones that decide on the name and
>>>>> content, but it is nice to co-ordinate with other camps, so readers can
>>>>> easily see and name the differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> I see Gregg listed his name as a supporter of the now called "Standard
>>>>> formulation" camp.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm going to delegate my support to Gregg, and indicated such in the
>>>>> google doc. That means my vote just follows Gregg to whatever camp he
>>>>> joins. Also, delegated supporters don't get notifications of proposed
>>>>> changes to the camp, as they rely on only direct supporters getting these
>>>>> modification notifications. Direct supporters are expected to stay
>>>>> involved, monitoring proposed modifications and such. If they don't want
>>>>> to do that, they can delegate their vote to any other supporter, whether
>>>>> delegate or not. People delegating to that person who switches from a
>>>>> direct supporter, would follow him and would become a new branch on the
>>>>> tree they delegated their support too. This is known as infinite
>>>>> delegation, with trees of delegated support, potentially giving good
>>>>> delegates LOTS of immediate influence. One person with a majority of
>>>>> delegates in a particular organization decision topic for example, could
>>>>> have absolute and instantaneous control over an organizational decision, by
>>>>> switching camps. *No hierarchical organization could compete* with
>>>>> that kind of speed and amplified wisdom of the crowd power at making good
>>>>> decisions for everyone. The direct suporter can decide whether or not they
>>>>> want to consult or notify their tree of delegators any time. Delegators
>>>>> can abandon their delegate, any time they want, if they think they aren't
>>>>> doing a good job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, John, that would be great if you added your name as a supporter
>>>>> of the competing camp. And also, I'm sure you can improve the camp
>>>>> statements, so that would be great if you did that also, especially for
>>>>> your camp.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NPjNqYhSaMxNjgP95wBQ07aR2JugGbwtP3fjRf0L7JM&s=xK3ebht5jaMU1CbhZblTo2Fjn_ZfUWjdjoWUHX2yB4Y&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kQP3BSaDeho7MB3rJuGEh1DoIVtnGR290wBU7t189xo&s=_z6G8G22KyYzWjW4GKx39oHv75HgnHXWtT3EHwGi6XQ&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Brent
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:03 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Gregg and Brent, I will defer to Gregg's characterization of the
>>>>>> first and second camps as Standard and First Principles of Physiology given
>>>>>> that he is more skilled at didacticism than I am. Not to mention that the
>>>>>> mindset of First Principles of Physiology infers the diachronic
>>>>>> perspective, so it's a win-win as I see it, if folks are willing to
>>>>>> transcend the descriptive in order to 'see' the nuts and bolts of
>>>>>> evolution. I see that as essential if we are going to make headway as a
>>>>>> species among species.....in that spirit I would appreciate your feedback
>>>>>> on the attached paper, somewhat in the spirit of 'sharing', but also for
>>>>>> critical evaluation, if you will because I see it as the way we may be able
>>>>>> to bridge the gap between the first and second camps. Thank you. John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 9:44 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Brent and John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks for this. I made some edits to the google doc. From my
>>>>>>> perspective, the central issue is not synchronic versus diachronic. I see
>>>>>>> the differences between us being that I (and the ToK depiction) frame the
>>>>>>> world in terms of emergent behavioral functionalist language, whereas
>>>>>>> John’s First Principles is more of a reductive physiological mechanistic
>>>>>>> view/language. Thus, I labeled the first camp “standard” and offered some
>>>>>>> description that way, and labeled the second camp the First Principles
>>>>>>> interpretation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is fun! Thanks so much Brent. I can see why this process could
>>>>>>> be really helpful for understanding agreement and disagreement and thus can
>>>>>>> be a real tool to foster agreement modeling.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:22 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts
>>>>>>> on Consciousness and Matter)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent, thank you for formulating the google doc. Should I fill in
>>>>>>> the initial camp statement to minimally define Diachronic v Synchronic, and
>>>>>>> sign in as an initial supporter? Please advise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:46 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Gregg,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's a very helpful slide deck.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the ToK is just a sub part of the much larger "Unified Theory
>>>>>>> Unified Approach".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It sounds like a good idea to start with a topic focusing on the ToK
>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> After this, we can expand things to include other consensus building
>>>>>>> topics arround the UTUA and its other parts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since Canonizer.com is designed to scale to hundreds of people or
>>>>>>> more, it is a bit cumbersome, when just a few people are working on things,
>>>>>>> and everyone knows what everyone does and does not agree with. Also, when
>>>>>>> you submit any change to Canonizer, unless the submitter is the only
>>>>>>> supporter of that camp, the change goes into review mode for one week,
>>>>>>> before it goes live. The direct supporters of that camp are notified via
>>>>>>> email of the pending proposed change, and that if no camp supporters
>>>>>>> object, the change will go live in one week. This is the easiest way to
>>>>>>> make changes, while guaranteeing there is unanimous consensus of all camp
>>>>>>> supporters for the change. In other words, any supporters of a camp or sub
>>>>>>> camp can object to any proposed change they don't like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So it is usually much more efficient to start with a google doc, in
>>>>>>> wiki mode (everyone can edit). Everyone can then wiki the topic and camp
>>>>>>> names, the structure (camp parents) and initial camp statements. It also
>>>>>>> helps if supporters of particular camp add their names a supporter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then once things start to take shape, and you get a handful of
>>>>>>> people willing to be initial supporters of initial camps, you can push this
>>>>>>> into a Canonizer topic and start seeking further public contribution and
>>>>>>> support (like asking people to sign a dynamic petition).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I've made a template google doc file (in wiki mode where anyone
>>>>>>> can edit).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It lists the topic and possible camp names, camp parents, possible
>>>>>>> statements....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've pre populated with example statements, and names. Foro the
>>>>>>> consensus super camp statement defining the ToK, so far, I've just included
>>>>>>> the ToK slide. There should probably be some textual description added to
>>>>>>> this slide.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure you guys can replace these with something much better. And
>>>>>>> it would be helpful if people could indicate who is willing to be initial
>>>>>>> camp supporters. (Also indicating they agree with the current camp and
>>>>>>> parent camp values.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In this google doc, feel free to replace my clueless example
>>>>>>> statements and names with something at least a bit better to get us started.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=NPjNqYhSaMxNjgP95wBQ07aR2JugGbwtP3fjRf0L7JM&s=xK3ebht5jaMU1CbhZblTo2Fjn_ZfUWjdjoWUHX2yB4Y&e=
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=akr4IF6Z1BhW9K8g1iouVG6B-UmzVw-qjK08161-WVE&s=DdYXXIg03tSvsYKLBsf8xI-5arfTwsTWpmRECScHdKs&e=>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does that sound reasonable?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:48 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think a super camp of what the ToK is would be great and then we
>>>>>>> could start to identify the process of building consensus around the best
>>>>>>> way to describe or characterize scientific knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, I pulled some diagrams together in the attached ppt to show
>>>>>>> the correspondence between the UTUA Theory of Knowledge and RQT…My goal is
>>>>>>> to show correspondence in the language game of UTUA with Representation
>>>>>>> Qualia Theory. And to highlight that the UTUA contextualizes some things,
>>>>>>> such as self-consciousness and language and behavioral action.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hope this helps show where I am.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will try to reply to your comments soon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2019 3:34 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts
>>>>>>> on Consciousness and Matter)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dang, still saying supper, when I mean super. Sorry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> please do a global replace of all "supper" words with "super".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:26 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could make a narrow-focused topic, just on the synchronic or
>>>>>>> diachronic nature of the joint points. Of course, people can use any name
>>>>>>> for their camp they want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or, we could make a more general consensus topic to define exactly
>>>>>>> what the ToK is.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps we could have a more general name like: “The Tree of
>>>>>>> Knowledge (ToK)”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the agreement statement could define the purpose of the topic
>>>>>>> by saying something like:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The purpose of this topic is to build consensus arround the best way
>>>>>>> to talk about and classify nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we could make a supper camp, which everyone will likely
>>>>>>> support. Maybe we could call it “ToK consensus definition”. I’m assuming
>>>>>>> everyone would agree with the stuff Gregg threw out there, which could seed
>>>>>>> this supper camp:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Universe is unfolding wave of behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior is change in object field relationship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior is key construct science uses to map universe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ontologically there are different kinds of behavior patterns in
>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Epistemologically, the scientific method is used to define and
>>>>>>> measure behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Global time ranges from the big bang until now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The past is determined, the future is probabilistic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior can be divided into levels of analysis (parts, wholes,
>>>>>>> groups in contexts)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior can be divided into dimensions of four complexity (Matter,
>>>>>>> Life, Mind, Culture)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dimensions are strongly emergent because of
>>>>>>> information-communication-memory systems (genetic, neuronal, linguistic)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Local time span varies across levels and dimensions of behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natural philosophy is agnostic about mysticism and supernatural
>>>>>>> claims, but the latter do not mesh with the grammar of the natural
>>>>>>> philosophy language system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sentience emerges at Mind and is dependent on nervous systems
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Human Persons are unique animals because of processes of
>>>>>>> justification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anywhere disagreement shows up, such as this synchronic / diachronic
>>>>>>> split, we could push down to supporting sub camps, one for each, which
>>>>>>> people could join. Whichever achieves the most consensus, would become the
>>>>>>> standard most people would want to use.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 12:55 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Brent,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I look forward to learning more about canonizer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, I view the ToK as a new way to conceive of natural philosophy.
>>>>>>> So, is a subject line something like
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ToK as Map of Scientific Knowledge or ToK as Natural Philosophy or
>>>>>>> ToK as new Language System for Science.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then some claims it makes (just brain storming quickly):
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Universe is unfolding wave of behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior is change in object field relationship
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior is key construct science uses to map universe
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ontologically there are different kinds of behavior patterns in
>>>>>>> nature
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Epistemologically, the scientific method is used to define and
>>>>>>> measure behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Global time ranges from the big bang until now
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The past is determined, the future is probabilistic
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior can be divided into levels of analysis (parts, wholes,
>>>>>>> groups in contexts)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Behavior can be divided into dimensions of four complexity (Matter,
>>>>>>> Life, Mind, Culture)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dimensions are strongly emergent because of
>>>>>>> information-communication-memory systems (genetic, neuronal, linguistic)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Local time span varies across levels and dimensions of behavior
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Natural philosophy is agnostic about mysticism and supernatural
>>>>>>> claims, but the latter do not mesh with the grammar of the natural
>>>>>>> philosophy language system
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sentience emerges at Mind and is dependent on nervous systems
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Human Persons are unique animals because of processes of
>>>>>>> justification
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this the kind of thing/list that starts a canonizer process?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:22 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts
>>>>>>> on Consciousness and Matter)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great, let’s get started, then.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John, Gregg, or anyone could you throw out any possible consensus
>>>>>>> building topic title? The limit is 30 characters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then we need to start with a general concise description of what we
>>>>>>> want to build consensus around.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And remember, this is not the peer reviewed publishing model, where
>>>>>>> everything needs to be perfect, before you publish. The wiki way is for
>>>>>>> anyone just to throw out their ideas, off the top of their head, and
>>>>>>> everyone constantly helps to improve things. Any and everything can change
>>>>>>> at any time, as long as no current supporters object.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 8:51 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Brent, I'm game. I do think that my approach is 'superior'
>>>>>>> because it is mechanistic, based on unbiased empiric data, not inductive
>>>>>>> reasoning. Just sayin'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:28 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That’s just what I needed, that schematic showing the differences.
>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This type of disagreement (or lack of consensus) is a perfect job
>>>>>>> for the Canonizer consensus building system. We could make a consensus
>>>>>>> building topic, who’s purpose is to build consensus around this issue of
>>>>>>> the nature of the joint points.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the root level agreement camp, we could state the purpose of the
>>>>>>> topic, or what we are trying to build consensus around. Then we could
>>>>>>> create two (or more) competing sub camps, to track, concisely and
>>>>>>> quantitatively, what everyone believes (and needs) from this. May the one
>>>>>>> which can achieve the most consensus, prevail, and become the standard.
>>>>>>> Yet still leave room for minority people, so everyone can still be aware
>>>>>>> of who needs something different and why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We could create a super camp, containing the general Matter, Life,
>>>>>>> Mind, Culture stack, which is the most important thing we all agree on.
>>>>>>> Then we could create two competing sub camps, working on the lessor
>>>>>>> important definition of the nature of the joint points. Once we have a
>>>>>>> concise description of the differences, and what it is each camp wants, we
>>>>>>> can see which one the experts agree has more utility, at least for them.
>>>>>>> And hopefully, once everyone understands, concisely and quantitatively,
>>>>>>> what everyone needs, someone can come up with a way to get everything,
>>>>>>> everything they need – and get us all in the same camp, mostly?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’ll split the consciousness part of the reply off on a different
>>>>>>> topic thread.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:32 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Brent, I would like to clarify, if I may, in [brackets] to your
>>>>>>> last reply
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *So the difference is, in the ToK it is the increasingly complex
>>>>>>> static state of matter at different joint points. Whereas for you, there
>>>>>>> is more utility if you think of the joint points as the ever-higher level
>>>>>>> processes or “mechanism” that enables one to move to each of the higher
>>>>>>> levels?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [The cellular approach to evolution is founded on The First
>>>>>>> Principles of Physiology- negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis.
>>>>>>> Those Principles are 'formulated' at the inception of the unicell in the
>>>>>>> transition from matter to life. All of the other levels in the ToK are
>>>>>>> products of those Principles, mediated by cell-cell interactions/signaling.
>>>>>>> So yes, you're right, but with this background of self-referential
>>>>>>> self-organization as the underlying set of principles.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Is this consciousness as a continuum model, a representational
>>>>>>> model of conscious perception where you have #1: the physical qualities of
>>>>>>> the target of perception (maybe glucose), and the very different qualities
>>>>>>> that are #2: the final result of the perception process, our knowledge of
>>>>>>> the target (maybe calcium flow)?*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I'm not sure I understand your statement, so I will restate what I
>>>>>>> think consciousness is. I think consciousness is the aggregate of our
>>>>>>> physiology as integrated cell-cell interactions for homeostasis. The
>>>>>>> self-referential self-organization derives from the formation and
>>>>>>> interactions of the cell with the environment, incorporating it and forming
>>>>>>> physiologic traits through compartmentation; homeostasis refers all the way
>>>>>>> back to the equal and opposite reaction to the Big Bang, being the 'force'
>>>>>>> that maintains equilibrium in the Cosmos, without which there would be no
>>>>>>> matter, only free energy and chaos. That very same homeostatic force is
>>>>>>> what generates balanced chemical reactions and life alike. The bottom line
>>>>>>> for me is that the agents/processes that formed the Cosmos are the
>>>>>>> principles for life as a derivative of those agents/processes, and what we
>>>>>>> think of as consciousness are those principles. So I use the analogy of the
>>>>>>> Cosmos as the Data Operating System and life as the software that runs off
>>>>>>> of that DOS.The calcium flow is the means by which the software functions
>>>>>>> within the organism.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have schematized the difference between the ToK and the cell-cell
>>>>>>> communication mechanism (see attached) to be clear. Bottom line is that the
>>>>>>> ToK describes the process whereas the cellular perspective provides the
>>>>>>> mechanism for the Joint Points. If you have further questions, comments,
>>>>>>> please don't hesitate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:26 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh, OK,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the difference is, in the ToK it is the increasingly complex
>>>>>>> static state of matter at different joint points. Whereas for you, there
>>>>>>> is more utility if you think of the joint points as the ever-higher level
>>>>>>> processes or “mechanism” that enables one to move to each of the higher
>>>>>>> levels?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is this consciousness as a continuum model, a representational model
>>>>>>> of conscious perception where you have #1: the physical qualities of the
>>>>>>> target of perception (maybe glucose), and the very different qualities that
>>>>>>> are #2: the final result of the perception process, our knowledge of the
>>>>>>> target (maybe calcium flow)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:18 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're welcome Brent, I will reply in brackets to your email as
>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me see if I have it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is modeling the transaction from single cellular to
>>>>>>> multicellular, where consciousness exists. This is done through the
>>>>>>> combined effects of niche construction and the phenotype guiding the
>>>>>>> process forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Yes and No. I think that consciousness exists in unicellular
>>>>>>> organisms, along with Arthur Reber, who wrote "First Minds". If you read
>>>>>>> Helmut Perlmutter's paper on the response of paramecia to glucose put in
>>>>>>> the water triggering a calcium flow, the same thing would happen if you put
>>>>>>> glucose on me tongue, the neurons in my brain also increasing calcium flow.
>>>>>>> I see consciousness as a continuum.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems quite similar to and compatible with the ToK where first
>>>>>>> there is Matter transitions to life (single cell), then life transitions to
>>>>>>> multicell / mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I see the ToK as compatible with my perspective, with the exception
>>>>>>> of the Joint Points between the different 'levels'. I think that they are
>>>>>>> mechanisms that generate the different levels that Gregg has formulated,
>>>>>>> and seeing it that way would make the 'Tree' more robust IMHO.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Help me understand how qualia fits within this model?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [If you follow the reasoning about physiology evolving in a
>>>>>>> step-wise manner, mediated by cell-cell signaling, traits that exist at one
>>>>>>> stage of evolution are integrated into subsequent stages, offering the
>>>>>>> opportunity for a sensory mechanism at one level to be vertically
>>>>>>> integrated into subsequent levels, acquiring other sensory associations
>>>>>>> along the way.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:53 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks John, that helps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me see if I have it:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is modeling the transaction from single cellular to
>>>>>>> multicellular, where consciousness exists. This is done through the
>>>>>>> combined effects of niche construction and the phenotype guiding the
>>>>>>> process forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This seems quite similar to and compatible with the ToK where first
>>>>>>> there is Matter transitions to life (single cell), then life transitions to
>>>>>>> multicell / mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Help me understand how qualia fits within this model?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:15 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Niche construction is the process by which an organism optimizes its
>>>>>>> surroundings.The classic example is the earthworm, which has retained its
>>>>>>> aquatic kidneys on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> land.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 1:57 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What I mean is that based on the Endosymbiosis Theory (margulis)
>>>>>>> that the cell assimilated factors in the environment and compartmentalized
>>>>>>> them like iron in red blood cells. That was the foundation for biology
>>>>>>> complying with Laws of Nature. In combination with the phenotype as agent 4
>>>>>>> collecting epigenetic marks we’d the organism to its environment
>>>>>>> evolutionarily.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:16 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think I still don’t know much about your model of consciousness,
>>>>>>> and what you mean by: “the transition to consciousness is accounted
>>>>>>> for by the combined effects of the cell as the first Niche Construction
>>>>>>> plus the phenotype as agent to account for the dynamic drive for the former.
>>>>>>> ”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, any further explanation you could do would help me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 7:38 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gregg, as I think I have said before, I see the way forward from
>>>>>>> your ToK through the Joint Points. So for example, my origins story
>>>>>>> regarding lipids in water is the transitional mechanism from matter to
>>>>>>> life; and the transition to consciousness is accounted for by the combined
>>>>>>> effects of the cell as the first Niche Construction plus the phenotype as
>>>>>>> agent to account for the dynamic drive for the former. If you want I can
>>>>>>> spell that out further, but I have to run for now. Thanks for the
>>>>>>> opportunity to explain my position vis a vis yours....John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 8:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Great question, John! I think the two perspectives can be merged,
>>>>>>> but “how” is a big issue. My experience is that I can incorporate your
>>>>>>> view, at least in many ways. As you know, I have illustrated it as the
>>>>>>> Torday Line.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is your experience that you can* incorporate* mine? Take, for
>>>>>>> example, Justification Systems Theory (JUST). I don’t know what it means to
>>>>>>> say that you can mechanistically reduce this to “cell-cell” communication.
>>>>>>> I certainly can acknowledge that there are analogies and homologies and the
>>>>>>> like between cell communication and human communication. But human language
>>>>>>> is also a radically different thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me put it this way, how does JUST impact your view of reality,
>>>>>>> specifically human consciousness or human knowledge? My experience has been
>>>>>>> that when you relate to the key features of the ToK from your perspective,
>>>>>>> they all dissolve away. That is, all the differentiation that I need as a
>>>>>>> human psychologist and psychotherapist to make sense of human persons and
>>>>>>> their complicated mental and cultural processes collapses into an
>>>>>>> undifferentiated mass. Thus, I would benefit from you explicating how these
>>>>>>> ideas fit in and are not just examples of “just so stories” or of
>>>>>>> rearranging deck chairs on the Explicate Order and the like—for if that is
>>>>>>> what they are, then you are not connecting the two systems—you are
>>>>>>> eliminating my system and replacing it with yours. If that is the reality,
>>>>>>> that is fine. But we need to be clear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, March 8, 2019 7:15 AM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts on Consciousness and Matter
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Gregg and ToKers, just briefly, you have said that I have
>>>>>>> dismissed the 'knower' in my analysis/synthesis based on the cell-cell
>>>>>>> communication model of evolutionary biology. But that's not the case. I
>>>>>>> have said to you on several occasions that I think my mechanism is your
>>>>>>> 'joint points', but you reject that idea for some reason. Please explain
>>>>>>> why the two perspectives, yours and mine, cannot be merged in that way?
>>>>>>> Best, John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:30 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi TOKers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am heading out to a conference (Theoretical and Philosophical
>>>>>>> Psychology) where I will be meeting up with Edward to support his
>>>>>>> presentation on Emotional Warfare and One Divide. Thus will likely not be
>>>>>>> replying in the next few days. I have enjoyed the conversation and helpful
>>>>>>> exchange of ideas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I will offer some parting thoughts. First, this conversation shows
>>>>>>> how “big” the concept of consciousness is. It is arguably the central
>>>>>>> problem in philosophy. That is, the relationship between our subjective
>>>>>>> field and the external world. Even that “dichotomy” raises questions from a
>>>>>>> number of analytical perspectives. But, the fact is that philosophy, like
>>>>>>> all of our knowledge systems has become so pluralistic, it is hard to know
>>>>>>> what to believe at all.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of my hopes with the ToK/UTUA System is by bringing a unified
>>>>>>> framework together for both natural philosophy and phenomenological being,
>>>>>>> a crucial aspect of the bridge that has previously been missing can now be
>>>>>>> complete.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, let’s describe the situation we find ourselves in. I posit
>>>>>>> that our individual and small group first-person experience of human
>>>>>>> consciousness can be mapped via the Tripartite Model. That is, each of us
>>>>>>> has a subjective, perceptual “empirical” (as in through the senses)
>>>>>>> experiential self system. Open your eyes and that is what you see. Second,
>>>>>>> we each have a language-based narrator, that has the remarkable capacity to
>>>>>>> either be private (as in when we talk to ourselves) or public (as when we
>>>>>>> talk to others). Here is the map:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now let’s consider our group “situation” as the TOK list serve. That
>>>>>>> is, the TOK is the “network society” that is serving as a hub for us as we
>>>>>>> participate and interact with each other. And each of us can be thought of
>>>>>>> as nodes in the network (I am indebted to Alexander Bard here). The
>>>>>>> internet and our keyboards provide the informational interface for our
>>>>>>> interactions and transactions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the “structure and function” of the system as a whole? Our
>>>>>>> justification systems, our question and answer claims about what is and
>>>>>>> what is not. Or, in late Wittgensteinian terms “language games.” That is,
>>>>>>> each of us has a phenomenal position in the world and each of us are
>>>>>>> narrating our version of reality. The term language games refers to the
>>>>>>> “grammar” or concepts and categories we are using to make sense of the
>>>>>>> world. The rules of the game are our methods for determining what is
>>>>>>> legitimate and what is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now we move to John’s language game/metaphysical empirical version
>>>>>>> of reality. John’s justification system is that, via some unique empirical
>>>>>>> findings, he has transcended the traditional descriptive biological view
>>>>>>> and achieved a view of reality that logically flows from first principles;
>>>>>>> that is, the big bang, action/reaction sparking a homeostatic free energy
>>>>>>> flow that gives rise to the core “first” principles of physiology. For
>>>>>>> John, this gets us out of our narrow anthropomorphic subjective view and
>>>>>>> allows for a truly scientific (i.e., analytically objective, physicalist)
>>>>>>> view of nature.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here is how I understand my and John’s dilemma. If you look at the
>>>>>>> attached Tree of Knowledge System poster, check out the diagrams on the
>>>>>>> bottom and go to the third one. It starts with Energy on the left and goes
>>>>>>> through Matter, Life, Mind and Culture down to a point. On the flip side,
>>>>>>> there is the “self/knower,” which starts at the Cultural dimension and goes
>>>>>>> down. In this email, that is what I have been emphasizing. On the top,
>>>>>>> there is the equation, Knowledge = known x knower/knower. Meaning that
>>>>>>> objective scientific knowledge is a function of that which is known by
>>>>>>> knowers, factoring out the unique subjective knower. The diagram shows what
>>>>>>> I mean. That is, the “anti-knower” refers to the conceptual process by
>>>>>>> which we factor out our human subjective knowledge and arrive at a
>>>>>>> holistic, generalizable “true” picture of matter and consciousness and
>>>>>>> everywhere in between. The scientific method is the anti-knower.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have been arguing with John, not so much because I disagree with
>>>>>>> his first principle view. But I experiencing it as eliminating my theory of
>>>>>>> the knower in an overly strong manner (as many physicalist reductive
>>>>>>> positions tend to do). My plea is that to get the equation right we need to
>>>>>>> include our subjective knower systems. We can not just eliminate them; to
>>>>>>> do so would be to eliminate all that we hold dear. What we need to do is
>>>>>>> first factor IN the human knower, before we factor her out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then, we can get a full view of existence that includes matter and
>>>>>>> reflective consciousness and everything in between.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gotta run.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:39 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification
>>>>>>> System of Neoliberalism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You said: “I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness
>>>>>>> sees looking at a strawberry?”. Exactly. People with the
>>>>>>> inability to distinguish between red and green light, have this problem
>>>>>>> because they represent both of these colors of light with the same physical
>>>>>>> quality. We don’t yet know if it is our redness, greenness, or something
>>>>>>> else, entirely. Tetra-chromats have an extra color they represent some of
>>>>>>> the visible spectrum with, so they can distinguish between similar colored
>>>>>>> light, which us normal tri-chromats are color blind too. I want to know
>>>>>>> what that color I’ve never experienced before is like.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking forward to when we finally know which physics in our
>>>>>>> brain, have these qualities, so we can finally say effing if the ineffable
>>>>>>> things like "My redness is like your greenness", and "oh THAT is what that
>>>>>>> 4th color is like"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:03 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent, I am saying that because oxytocin has pleiotropic effects
>>>>>>> perhaps it connects the image of a strawberry to its taste on the tongue
>>>>>>> and the color red. And these elements of red strawberries were acquired
>>>>>>> across space/time diachronically. That’s what I imagine quaila to be as
>>>>>>> free associations . I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness
>>>>>>> sees looking at a strawberry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:52 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just so I am clear, Is your distinction below parallel or similar to Locke’s
>>>>>>> distinction between primary and secondary qualities
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Primary_secondary-5Fquality-5Fdistinction&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gYtcWhJWfW_jwIkpdOIqstz4l4xPnp3Chp0vIZobamM&s=pK9xRcnEhvTDmerVyZRDnnr2XRkxDtX15ylr08Rsq9I&e=>?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:47 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification
>>>>>>> System of Neoliberalism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have missed the point, because we are talking about completely
>>>>>>> different things. Everything you are saying makes complete sense, in a
>>>>>>> completely qualia blind way. For example, when you talk about linking “color
>>>>>>> and other physiologic functions of oxytocin” what do you mean by
>>>>>>> “color”? It seems that what you mean by color, you are only talking about
>>>>>>> abstract names, such as the word “red”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m talking about something completely different. I’m talking about
>>>>>>> physical qualities, not their names. Within my model, when you say color,
>>>>>>> I don’t know which of the flooring two physical properties you are talking
>>>>>>> about:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation.
>>>>>>> These properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry
>>>>>>> reflecting red light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final
>>>>>>> results of the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious
>>>>>>> knowledge of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as
>>>>>>> *redness*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I guess you’re not talking about either of these, you are only
>>>>>>> talking about the physical properties of oxytocin, and how it behaves in
>>>>>>> the retina? Would you agree that it is a very real possibility, that
>>>>>>> experimentalists, operating in a non-qualia blind way, could falsify any
>>>>>>> belief that oxytocin is necessary for any computationally bound composite
>>>>>>> conscious experiences of redness, or any other qualia?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:26 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent, I think that you have missed the point of the hormone
>>>>>>> oxytocin functionally connecting the cell that perceives color (the cone)
>>>>>>> with the epithelial cells that line the retina, offering a way of
>>>>>>> physically seeing red in conjunction with pain.....it's a hypothesis for
>>>>>>> linking vision and color and other physiologic functions of oxytocin, of
>>>>>>> which there are many, including regulation of body heat, empathy, the
>>>>>>> relaxation of the uterus during birth and production of breast milk,
>>>>>>> referred to as 'let down', which I always thought was a funny term, be that
>>>>>>> as it may. I would imagine, for example, that a woman in labor might see
>>>>>>> red due to the pain of that experience. And just to expand on that idea of
>>>>>>> interconnections between physiology and physics, the attached paper shows
>>>>>>> the homologies (same origin) between Quantum Mechanics and The First
>>>>>>> Principles of Physiology. That nexus would hypothetically open up to seeing
>>>>>>> a red strawberry, particularly because I equated pleiotropy (the
>>>>>>> interconnections between physiologic traits through the distribution of the
>>>>>>> same gene in different tissues and organs) with non-localization, the
>>>>>>> physics that Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:48 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m glad you at least mentioned the name, “red” of a physical
>>>>>>> quality. But are the physical properties of oxytocin, or the physical
>>>>>>> properties of anything in the retina anything like either of the physical
>>>>>>> qualities of these two things?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation.
>>>>>>> These properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry
>>>>>>> reflecting red light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final
>>>>>>> results of the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious
>>>>>>> knowledge of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as
>>>>>>> *redness*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other than the fact that we may be able to abstractly interpret some
>>>>>>> of these physical qualities, like we can interpret the word “red” as
>>>>>>> representing a redness physical quality? You can’t know what the word red
>>>>>>> (or anything in the eye representing anything) means, unless you provide a
>>>>>>> mechanical interpretation mechanism that get’s you back to the real
>>>>>>> physical quality they represent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All abstract representations (including all computer knowledge) are
>>>>>>> abstracted away from physical qualities. Any set of physical qualities,
>>>>>>> like that of a particular physical cone in a retina, can represent a 1 (or
>>>>>>> anything else), but only if you have an interpretation mechanism to get the
>>>>>>> one, from that particular set of physics. Consciousness, on the other
>>>>>>> hand, represents knowledge directly on physical qualities, like redness and
>>>>>>> greenness. This is more efficient, since it requires less abstracting
>>>>>>> hardware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:14 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent and TOKers, I am hypothesizing that consciousness is the net
>>>>>>> product of our physiology, which is vertically integrated from the
>>>>>>> unicellular state to what we think of as complex traits. In that vein, in
>>>>>>> the paper attached I proferred as an example the role of oxytocin in
>>>>>>> endothermy/homeothermy/warm-bloodedness. The pleiotropic effect of oxytocin
>>>>>>> on retinal cones and retinal epithelial cells would hypothetically account
>>>>>>> for seeing 'red' when looking at a strawberry, for example. It's the
>>>>>>> 'permutations and combinations' that form our physiology that cause such
>>>>>>> interrelationships due to our 'history', both short-term developmental and
>>>>>>> long-term phylogenetic. Hope that's helpful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tim Henriques asked:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “What is your operational definition of consciousness?”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Torday replied with his definition / model of consciousness.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, if you google for solutions to the “hard problem” of
>>>>>>> consciousness, you will find as many solutions as you care to take time to
>>>>>>> look into.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m sure all these models have some utility, when it comes to
>>>>>>> understanding various things about our consciousness, and our place in the
>>>>>>> world. But what I don’t understand is, why not a one of them include
>>>>>>> anything about the qualitative nature of consciousness? None of them give
>>>>>>> us anything that might enable us to bridge Joseph Levine’s
>>>>>>> “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=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=UIxALV6nC0i0REWXcxwY9XJkwi_k0lNlkxReXKG7Kc4&e=>.
>>>>>>> In other words, to me, they are all completely blind to physical qualities
>>>>>>> or qualia. In fact, as far as I know, all of “peer reviewed” scientific
>>>>>>> literature, to date, is obliviously qualia blind. Is not the qualitative
>>>>>>> nature of consciousness it’s most important attribute?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One important thing regarding conscious knowledge is the following
>>>>>>> necessary truth:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “If you know something, there must be something physical that is
>>>>>>> that knowledge.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This implies there are two sets of physical qualities we must
>>>>>>> consider when trying to objectively perceive physical qualities:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation.
>>>>>>> These properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry
>>>>>>> reflecting red light.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final
>>>>>>> results of the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious
>>>>>>> knowledge of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as
>>>>>>> *redness*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we seek to find what it is in our brain which has a redness
>>>>>>> quality, we must associate and identify the necessary and sufficient set of
>>>>>>> physics for a redness experience. For example, it is a hypothetical
>>>>>>> possibility that it is glutamate, reacting in synapses, that has the
>>>>>>> redness quality. If experimentalists could verify this, we would know that
>>>>>>> it is glutamate that has a redness quality. We would then finally know
>>>>>>> that it is glutamate we should interpret “red” as describing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, given all that, and given that consciousness is composed of a
>>>>>>> boat load of diverse qualia or physical qualities all computationally bound
>>>>>>> together, and if experimentalists can verify these predictions about the
>>>>>>> qualitative nature of various physical things. Would that not imply the
>>>>>>> following definitions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> “Intentionality, free will, intersubjectivity, self-awareness,
>>>>>>> desire, love, spirits… indeed consciousness itself, are all computational
>>>>>>> bound composite qualitative knowledge.”
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As always, for more information, see the emerging 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=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=0lbtXYwu6UYUdQeUkWWMfrHjCaUUKuXa5N1zYDhjsf8&e=>
>>>>>>> camp over at canonizer.com
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=QF6BXcCLyHuTabm0Y_tR_F1kNvcsGgmM-j5AKZ5FuaE&e=>
>>>>>>> being called: “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=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=pEF0jzBSKnzm7WMm97GdK89Xq78vTnh8L2J427I7nac&e=>”.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>
############################
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
|
