mmm, measurement and proof, I relate this to someone who can only read
sheet music vs a Free Jazz improvisation; when you stop counting you listen
to and for relationships, and play, fall, and create.

"All you have are your relationships." Tim Pickerill

Timothy Rollin Pickerill
Business - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=ve4kgajZ6QLXjyMkdyk-i_LCTtAdNR5q0a_FiC9vhHc&e= 
Photography - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=E5gaKBkyi1hHAc8LlYTCnDBtdjuUt_6IiDRKFC2MLD0&e= 
Art - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=7dt55OEDu-EMNqhkZhNCYnNJJM4FmI99K2asaIdlQqo&e= 
646-299-4173 (cell)


On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:12 PM michael kazanjian <[log in to unmask]>
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.
> ------------------------------
> Nicholas:
>
> I hope you take this as a compliment or similar remark, not criticism.
> Your notion that the people are too interested in measurement, sounds like
> Feynman, who criticized math people as too concerned with "proof."
>
> Interesting insight.
>
> Michael M. Kazanjian
>
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022, 10:03:12 PM CST, Nicholas Lattanzio <
> [log in to unmask]> 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.
> ------------------------------
> Yall are too concerned with measuring things IMO. I get it I do from an
> inquisitive naturalistic perspective, I just don't see what the utility
> actually is (I mean that very literally, not pejoratively or flippantly).
>
> For example, by definition of MHC (thanks for making it clear what we were
> even talking about here, took me a few times through the thread to notice
> the links Zak shared), a higher level of order can only be defined in terms
> of the next lowest order. With increasing evolutionary sensitivity these
> orders are only going to become more varied, stratified, and virtually
> useless independent of each other. They only have use in context of each
> other, so in that sense I totally see the enactment aspect of this
> regarding our unique positioning in the evolutionary scale of things
> (things that have come before us). It very much falls in line with UTOK and
> probably the metaphysics of most everyone on this listserv, but it doesn't
> serve a purpose as a measurement. That thing, that onto-epistemogical
> golden cosmic thread is not adequately reduced to binary (or bimodal)
> actualizations. If we are to learn anything from this age of measurement
> it's that we need a better way to be in touch with potential, the
> unactualized. Enactment does that as the operating ontological process that
> transcends the being-becoming dialectic.
>
> Now if we are looking at efficiency, sure, let's figure out how many bits
> we need to acheive this or that and strive to encourage that, though that
> has never not been the case for evolution or reality. We can certainly say
> that anything could have been done more simply or less simply, but if it's
> done then it was done exactly the way it needed to be done and that is
> exactly the information we use to judge the necessary bits in the first
> place. An electron is an electron is an electron, let's call it one bit.
> Now it's entangled and in superposition, how many bits is that? Well it
> would depend on what order of complexity you're talking about, and of
> course the meaning or implications differ across and within orders, MHC
> appears to contend that as well, what are we going to do with that
> information? The we that could do something with that information IS that
> information as an expression itself of the cosmic golden thread or whatever
> you want to call it.
>
> I mean I guess this is what people do so maybe that's the whole point, but
> we can't answer Lee's questions about free energy with it since we would
> need to use the terms of the order of nature/complexity just below free
> energy. Any attempt to do that is abstraction at the level of mind and
> further at culture. Which is the mosquito and which is the iron bull?
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:05 PM lee simplyquality.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=c-FOqQjjXV0Q_DM0rvb23rf2afV92WcqQIfecZF3b1I&s=QZ7sxChQwiWJjj1Yazke_iTKmRQxo8WQgBbOTndCUPI&e=>
> <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> ------------------------------
> Thanks for all this.
>
> My understanding is that:
>
> At 32,000 genes, the carrot genome is a good deal longer than that of
> humans (somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 genes).
>
>
> Therefore I am curious about the Life complexity metric of genomic
> complexity, C.
> Is the complexity different from the number of genes in the genome?
> If so, how is it measured?
>
> Also, I think of entropy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Entropy&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SS4gTnrBxuAodN_nyCCz7E2sRQbF8iI9-mg5W9dhKaw&s=5rHzMMo1Z5f9gPabLuE6C0Uektqi5dFogSpzvHLUUtg&e=> as
> the typically used measure of “disorder” (often interpreted as complexity).
> How does entropy compare to free energy as a measure of complexity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee Beaumont
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 7:41 PM, Brandon Norgaard <
> [log in to unmask]> 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.
> ------------------------------
> Thanks Brendan.  A few months ago, I gave a presentation at one of your
> book club events of a table I put together starting from Gregg’s Periodic
> Table of Behavior (PTB) and added content from his discussion with Jordan
> Hall and also from some other sources such as the Conscious Evolution
> podcast.  I just added the content from your first message and I now have
> the table publicly available for everyone to view and add comments:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=Lp_CkzoiE9cL6iyiL3pqFrk8ofxq1-dqz1rZJq7Qs3Q&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-forJDYnYeVU85bHhkk-3r02ASBpSuwROcJ0o2Zxxko&s=n5iYDOFT77sWXeSzXluvxffU58e3h9i_ZLxgujX3Tbw&e=>
>
> I figure something like this could be published officially somewhere,
> after it’s cleaned up as necessary, giving credit to the parties who
> created the content.  All I did was put it together into a single table.
>
> Regarding the metric of socio-cultural evolution, I’m not sure if MHC is
> the right one, or at least it seems that is only part of the picture.  I
> remember the Chomsky Hierarchy also gives a nested hierarchy of symbolic
> meaning in languages.  Some animals can communicate only at the regular
> expression level, some at the context-free grammar level, and we humans
> have recursively enumerable communicative capability.  Also within this we
> have many levels of complexity of cultural codes, which has some relation
> to MHC, but there is more to it.  A person can be at a moderate level of
> MHC with regard to their mental capability while also operating within a
> highly complex cultural code.  Centuries ago, some people had high MHC
> while operating within a simpler cultural code than we have now.  I have to
> figure that it is the complexity of the cultural code that is the real
> metric here.  Any given cultural code would seem to have some level of MHC
> baked into it, but I’m thinking that there should be some metric that would
> be an enhancement of the Chomsky Hierarchy that would measure the
> complexity of the cultural code itself.  Essentially, this would measure
> the complexity of language games within a given culture and symbol set
> (spoken, written, facial expressions, gestures, etc.)  The Chomsky
> Hierarchy only has recursively enumerable as the top level, but I have to
> figure there are many subdivisions within that.  Does anyone know who has
> done work on this?
>
> Brandon
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Bruce Alderman
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:27 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
> The same year Wilber published SES, Henryk Skolimowski published a book
> arguing that we are at a time between worldviews -- represented as a 'dip'
> and 'chaotic tangle' between plateaus of dominant worldviews/paradigms --
> and proposed the next emergent view will be holistic, participatory, and
> evolutionary (whatever we name it; some of his prior worldview names are
> 'Theos' and 'Mechanos').  One of his arguments in the book is that
> evolution reveals a long trajectory of gradually increasing sensitivity --
> of evolving modes, degrees, etc, of prehension, awareness, and
> 'participation' that entities use to interface with the rest of reality.
> And a key idea, somewhat anticipating Wilber's "W-5" turn, is that we need
> to view this evolution of sensitivity in enactive terms, that evolution
> demonstrates a wandering but not directionless unfolding of greater, more
> complex ways that entities participatorily 'enact' their worlds.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:05 PM Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>
> I think Major Histocompatability Complex, which from my understanding are
> proteins that help the immune system adapt. I believe they measure it in
> making vaccines, and use a great deal of statistical information to
> generate probabilistic outcomes. But that's all self-education from
> articles I read like 2 years ago. I could be totally wrong amd/or they
> could be talking about something else.
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 1:56 PM Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> ------------------------------
> Jim Rutt Show: On Hierarchical Complexity:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jimruttshow.com_zak-2Dstein-2D4_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=M8KzG4vAZ1LEycQV39fmRD3Qq5ghaAX4B28RPB5JVww&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jimruttshow.com_zak-2Dstein-2D4_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=So2Gj7XP4B3GguSgm4qBYOvUcuunJSnScYrLptGDVRA&e=>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=i3huf8rPj-WfLznvlgZMiwXhXF0glEYvttuDkX76XUs&e= 
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=e6QCTgwuwT3HO9mehFDk5SQQ_cciahi9xJWQYVvMEP0&e=>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 2:27 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
> Someone, please clarify (for me) what MHC means.
>
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 9:42 AM, Zachary Stein <[log in to unmask]> 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.
> ------------------------------
> You're on you something Brendan,
>
> Many thinkers
>   have been on the same scent.
>
> Aside from e.g., Wilber's
>  use of Laszlo et al
>  in *Sex, Ecology Spirtuality;*
>  See also, for example,
>   less well known works
>   like Elliot Jaques'
>   *The Life and Behavior
>     of Living Organisms.*
>
> Everyone has been asking:
>  Can the whole of evolution
>   be placed along
>   a single objective axis
>   of directionality?
>
> Multiple, level-specific "measures,"
>   yes, ok, *and*
>    there are deep structural isomorphisms
>    across/between levels.
>
> Piaget & Co.
>   can be read as suggesting
>   that what we call MHC
>   (Fischer's Skill Levels)
>   are a local manifestation
>   of a cosmic evolutionary process
>   occuring at all levels:
>   matter, life, and mind.
>
> Quite a claim.
>
> Problematic,
>   but also illuminating
>   and insightful.
>
> It is to say,
>   aside from space, time, etc
>   there is another universally measurable
>   dimension involving (forgive the jargon)
>    *non-abirtary iterations
>     of complex emergence
>     and hierarchical integration*
>
> "The many become one,
>  and are increased by one."
>   As Whitehead would say.
>
> This is the many stepped
>  "stairway" of evolution
>   giving a sense
>   that things are "going somewhere"
>     rather than just meandering and
>     arbitrarily enduring through time.
>
> But, of course,
>   even if we accept all that
>   what does it buy us?
>
> Does it buy us what we want?
>
> I think it buys a great deal,
>   some of it we want
>  (some of it we don't know what to do with);
>   But this second step
>   of "who cares/so what?"
>   is not trivial.
>
> zak
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 10:45 AM Brendan Graham Dempsey <
> [log in to unmask]> 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 all,
>
> Have been considering the ToK through the complexification lens and
> wondering what the specific quantitative metrics might be in each domain of
> complexification. Each new information system would complexify along its
> own trajectory, meaning the specific metric used to measure it would be
> different than the one before. Moreover, each metric would be dependent
> upon and relate to the ones on which it rests. Here's what I was playing
> with:
>
> *MATTER*: Cosmic evolution – energy (metric: free energy rate density, Øm)
> *LIFE*: Biological evolution – genetic information (metric: “physical
> [genomic] complexity”, C)
> *MIND*: Consciousness evolution – nervous system integration (metric:
> integrated information, Ø)
> *CULTURE*: Cultural evolution – linguistic justification systems (metric:
> hierarchical task complexity, MHC)
>
> At the level of *matter*, I think the work of Eric Chaisson on cosmic
> evolution is helpful, and he uses the free energy rate density (Øm) as his
> metric.
> At the level of *life*, some preliminary searches yielded genomic
> complexity (C) as a potential metric, as according to the work of Adami,
> Ofria, and Collier (2003), but I suspect there is better/more recent work
> on measuring biological complexity.
> At the level of *mind*, I was wondering whether IIT would be the best
> fit, which uses the metric of Ø of increasing sentience.
> Finally, at the level of *culture*, I'm intrigued by the potential for
> the Model of Hierarchical Complexity to measure justification systems and
> other cultural phenomena.
>
> Again, each new metric would map onto the other, such that Øm would
> increase as C increased as Ø increased as MHC increased. That's a
> hypothesis, anyway.
>
> Perhaps I'm re-inventing the wheel here, so let me know if there's already
> work that's done this. But I wanted to hear people's perspectives on the
> prospect of identifying different complexity metrics for each unique level
> of the stack.
>
> Cheers,
> Brendan
> ############################
> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Zachary Stein, Ed.D.
> www.zakstein.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zakstein.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YdRLNMaydS8BjgIdh3dHs8piU-A007PURV8gr6ghKCg&s=-RgOZ82hnT70JsA8h7l5kS4HpqFxbNXeDHQcBLt2VNc&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
>
>
>
> --
> Zachary Stein, Ed.D.
> www.zakstein.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zakstein.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=hrMDanBRLvtThATSswHjSE9xtL_v4JVvLwLNuvNfXD0&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