Gregg,
:-)
Thanks. I stand corrected. Physics is universal, physicists aren't.
TY
DL
On 11/6/2020 6:36 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote:
>
> Deepak,
>
> I agree that */physics/* is neither eastern nor western.
>
> */Physicists/* are different. They are persons who are socialized into
> particular frames of being, and thus the idea of Western physicists
> makes sense to me, but Western physics does not.
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba
> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2020 7:38 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Gregg,
>
> Physics (physicists) is universal & neither eastern nor western.
> Consciousness as deduced in my work is valence, a quantum perturbation
> from a system's state cascaded across complexity (higher & higher) to
> the top. And brain is a mere processor of accumulated & cascaded
> information. A smartphone is a device that can be used to do a number
> of things, but only when a source of data is available. Consciousness
> is the internal data source, while brain is processor. Any other
> processor, smaller brain (as in birds & some animals), very large
> brains (as in elephants & whales & dolphins) or even a highly
> developed nervous system without a brain.
>
> You have the book with you. The (attribute based) definition of
> consciousness is also provided therein.
>
> TY
> DL
>
> On 11/6/2020 5:42 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote:
>
> I just saw Deepak’s reply.
>
> In my comment about physicists, I should have said “Western
> physicists” :0)…
>
> That said, I would need to explore more what is meant by
> consciousness without a brain…
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba
> *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2020 7:11 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Joan,
>
> /Indeed within the existing scope of knowledge it has to be
> decided whether consciousness is either an entity,
> property/relationship./
>
> /Truly yours
> Deepak Loomba/
>
> On 11/6/2020 4:48 PM, Joan Walton wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Gregg
>
> Thank you for your response. I'm not sure whether our
> sense-making can line up or not, but as I think it is
> important to cooperatively try to make sense of the crazy
> world we live in, and the significance of our individual lives
> within that world, then I'll explain a little of where I am
> coming from. At the end of this email, I copy a short
> section from a paper I wrote, which contextualises some of the
> points made in the email.
>
> Firstly, I think the implications of quantum physics for a new
> worldview are phenomenal - that is a worldview which
> fundamentally challenges the mechanistic, Newtonian one that
> dominates and influences an increasingly neoliberal
> politicised world. What quantum physics does is challenges
> the separatist, determinist, reductive ontological assumptions
> of classical science, and instead shows us that we live in an
> entangled, inter-relational universe, where the observer does
> not exist independently of the world s/he observes. I don't
> think we can separate out 'macro-science' and quantum physics,
> because they are both emergent from the same underlying
> reality, but their underlying assumptions are in fact mutually
> exclusive (separate v entangled, certainty v uncertainty, etc).
>
> In the classical, Newtonian worldview, it is possible to
> believe that (inanimate) matter is primary, and that
> consciousness (life) is a late emergent property of matter.
> Am I understanding your model correctly, where you have
> 'matter' at the base, and 'life' as emerging from matter? You
> do not mention consciousness, but - and correct me if I am
> wrong - I am assuming that in your model, consciousness
> emerges with 'life' - and perhaps, in line with the Newtonian
> view, consciousness is a by-product of the brain?
>
> Although there are many interpretations of quantum physics, a
> central one is that it questions the nature of Consciousness
> (written with a capital C to differentiate it from the
> individualised form of consciousness we all experience) - with
> some physicists suggesting that the only way to explain the
> double-slit experiment is if you accept that particles have
> Consciousness. In other words, it is possible that
> Consciousness is primary, fundamental, universal - which would
> change everything. Your timeline starts with the Big Bang -
> but what existed before then? Possibly Consciousness - and if
> Consciousness is a living dynamic energy, and we are all an
> expression of that fundamental Consciousness, then in fact
> Life would precede matter?
>
> In other words, the theory is, that if the universe were
> destroyed by a nuclear bomb right now, the physical world
> might be destroyed, but Consciousness in its essential form,
> would not be. It is in that context that Max Planck's quote
> makes sense.
>
> John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, develops this thinking
> when he states: "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances
> to say that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us,
> that view can no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense
> in which this is a ‘participatory universe’ ".
>
> I'm interested in exploring what it means to live in a
> 'participatory universe' with an ontological assumption that
> we, as living beings, are essentially creative expressions of
> a 'participatory consciousness'. Which means that how we
> experience each present moment, the choices we make, right
> here, right now, influence the reality that is created. There
> are no inbuilt laws, no predetermined reality, the future is
> open to us, and will reflect the extent to which we are able
> to 'tune in' and resonate with the fundamental consciousness
> which is the source of our being. And in that sense, the
> quantum principles of entanglement, interconnectedness and
> interrelatedness become central. This becomes important when
> we think of problems like climate change, environmental
> degradation, terrorism, the many forms of abuse and oppression
> that epitomise our world - all stem from perceptions of
> separation and alienation, and a lack of connection to each
> other and the wider planet.
>
> Where does this tie in with psychology, which I know is your
> main interest? Well, with the kind of ontological foundation
> that I am proposing, I see psychology, the different sciences,
> sociology, politics, economics, etc etc as all being
> interrelated, and it is important to see each discipline in
> the context of all the rest - again to follow any one of these
> without attention to their relationship to all the others,
> merely exacerbates the sense of separation which I think is
> core to all world problems.
>
> If this is not really relevant to your interests, please do
> say! But it does worry me that there are so many intelligent
> people on this planet, many with great ideas about what needs
> to be done to make the world a better place (and listening to
> Trump in the last 24 hours, we definitely need more
> intelligent alternatives), and with theoretical frameworks
> (such as your own) which aim to enhance understanding and
> wisdom. However if we don't make some attempt to 'join up'
> these different approaches, and translate these into some form
> of cooperative (including political) action, then our
> individual voices will be drowned out by the tsunami of
> ignorance, selfishness and self-centredness etc, that
> threatens to overwhelm us.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Joan
>
> Quantum physics has revealed that reality is much more
> complex, and far less easily comprehensible, than had appeared
> to be the case when it was believed that the Laws of Newtonian
> Science were applicable to all of reality.
>
> Scientists have recognised the problems that are inherently
> challenging in this. Einstein (1879-1955) summed it up as
> follows:
>
> We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two
> contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them
> fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do."
> (Einstein & Infeld 1938:262-263).
>
> **
>
> John Wheeler (1911-2008), a theoretical physicist and a
> colleague of Einstein’s, reflected on the very different
> worldview that emerged from quantum physics:
>
> Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the
> world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no
> longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a
> ‘participatory universe’. (1994: 126)
>
> Wheeler suggests that, rather than being passive bystanders in
> the world, we are instead active participants, who create
> rather than discover the universe with which we are interacting.
>
> In summary, quantum physics reveals that we live in a
> non-deterministic universe, where it is not possible to
> predict with certainty, but only in terms of probabilities;
> and where there is no independent observer, as the act of
> observing and measuring reality changes the nature of that
> reality. The phenomenon of entanglement identifies that the
> influence of one particle on another cannot be explained by
> cause and effect, but instead indicates a relational
> interconnectedness that can only be understood within the
> context of the whole in which both particles are located.
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 16:15, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Joan,
>
> Thanks for this note. I appreciate your question/point
> about ontology. I am somewhat familiar with Barad’s work,
> but did not dive deeply to see how much it aligns with my
> own. I will say that think there are many different issues
> here that need to be disentangled. For example, I was not
> sure if you were talking about scientific knowledge or
> other forms/domains/claims pertaining to knowledge. The
> issues are a bit different depending on the frame.
>
> If we are talking about our scientific knowledge of the
> universe, the ToK System aligns quite well with Roy
> Bhaskar’s work in critical realism. He does good work
> separating epistemology from ontology. Note that most of
> his focus is on macro science and everyday knowledge.
> Things are a bit different if we move into the quantum
> domain, so I would need to know which domain you were
> focused on.
>
> Here is the basic map of scientific knowledge and reality
> afforded by the ToK System. It characterizes Matter, Life,
> Mind, and Culture as planes of existence, which represents
> the ontic reality. It identifies science as a kind of
> justification system that generates ontological claims
> about the ontic reality via epistemological methods that
> justify those claims.
>
> Given this map of the ontic reality and scientific
> onto-epistemology, I don’t know how to interpret Max
> Planck’s quote.
>
> I would welcome your interpretation to see if our
> sensemaking lines up here or not.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion
> <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of
> *Joan Walton
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
> the sender and know the content is safe.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Gregg
>
> I was interested in a sentence in the email below: "I am
> noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between
> folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions
> that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2)
> objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language)".
>
> I would be interested in the ontological assumptions that
> you and others consider inform these epistemological
> positions? So often, ontology gets explicitly ignored
> (whilst implicitly influencing everything).
>
> I'm very interested in the idea that separation of any
> kind is an illusion, and am exploring the idea of the
> 'inseparability of the knower and known'. I don't know if
> you are familiar with Karen Barad's /Meeting the Universe
> Halfway - quantum physics and the entanglement of matter
> and meaning/, and her concept of
> 'ethico-onto-epistemology' where ethics, ontology and
> epistemology are entangled. In exploring these ideas, my
> starting point is that everything starts with our
> experience (hence phenomenological); and we have no
> experience without consciousness - so consciousness is
> fundamental to all that we think, say and do. So our
> beliefs about the nature of consciousness become integral
> to all other ontological and epistemological issues. Max
> Planck's “I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard
> matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get
> behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about,
> everything that we regard as existing, postulates
> consciousness.” (1932: /Where is Science Going). /
>
> But we need to start with our experiences of
> consciousness, and share those experiences, with any
> theories grounded in, and resonating with, those first
> person experiences.
>
> Within this context, my sense is that selecting an
> epistemological position from the three you identify is in
> itself a form of separation, which we need to try to move
> beyond?
>
> I could write a lot more, but I'll leave it there. Sorry,
> I do not have the space to read all the emails on this
> list, though I read a fair number, and I may be writing
> about stuff you've already covered, or is not particularly
> relevant to your main points of discussion, but just
> thought I would give a quick response to that section
> which caught my attention.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Joan
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 10:52, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing his
> story regarding the problem of value in psychology. It
> affirmed for me strongly how fraught the problems of
> simply applying the methodological language game of
> MENS is to human psychology, as it comes with many
> different “value parameters” that can quickly be
> overlooked and hidden, and extreme assumptions of
> “objectivity” become masked and tangled with the methods.
>
> My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the ToK
> System instead of empirical methodology as the
> language game of MENS. The reason is obviously,
> metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For example, it was
> clear that the exchange, as all the TOK Community
> exchanges have been, along with virtually all other
> zoom exchanges, take place on the Culture-Person plane
> of existence and involve justification, investment and
> influence dynamics. In the broad sense, Steve shared
> his justification narrative for his struggles with the
> justifications that empirical psychology, especially
> trait personality psychology, offer.
>
> Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a caveat.
> The problem is largely resolved, IMO, when we have the
> right metaphysical map of human psychology. The
> “traits” of the Big Five are, indeed, dispositional
> tendencies that emerge over the course of development.
> There are genetic differences that track onto
> behavioral dispositional differences, although the
> road is complicated and filled with feedback loops,
> such that genes clearly don’t cause traits.
>
> I could go on, but the point is that we need a theory
> of “traits”, just like we need a theory/frame for
> talking about our entire subject matter. And, ala
> Mike’s arguments, that does need to be
> intersubjectively constructed. (Note, BTW, I am noting
> an interesting set of tensions is emerging between
> folks in the group who emphasize epistemological
> positions that are grounded in: 1)
> subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral
> v 3) intersubjective/language).
>
> The question I pose: What is the proper language game
> for human psychology? For me, the metapsychology
> provided by UTOK provides the best way forward. For
> starters, it shines the light on the Enlightenment Gap
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Denlightenment-2Dgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=meyfxoGp13Dr61ajBU9icCoVaWoi7x-1EVnbsJSORMs&e=>
> and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue it was
> in the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap that Steve
> found his “is-ought” problem. And the proper way
> forward is not via the empirical methods of science,
> but first, a language game that gets the field of
> inquiry clear. We were headed in that direction near
> the end: What are the/needs/ we have as Primates? How
> do we /justify/ our selves as Persons?
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> /Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with
> integrity./
>
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=t_qRCvWE4Honf76B-IRlZhW-gYKX0PDNQc7KsLJHoOo&s=7D4fBunRPuC24FYctONrB6ZMVboCwS7d5m9_kctA3WU&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=g0V3gh806uhoNKQyWv1SB_52tEzR45nG9MsiUdzIu2U&e=>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <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
|
