Dear Waldemar, I have been hoping to 'connect' with you given our common
backgrounds in medicine, me as a PhD and you as a PhD/MD. I figured if
anyone might catch on to what I am trying to say, you would be the logical
candidate. So for you to have said that my arguments explain 'why'
evolution is a valid concept is huge (hyperbole notwithstanding).....though
I would like to think it also explains 'how' it has occurred, but perhaps I
am asking too much. I'll take what I can get for now. Perhaps you could
comment on the attached, which is a novel perspective on empiricism? Best,
John
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 1:49 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> John:
>
> If I may, a comment.
> Your arguments seem an excellent series of arguments as to “why” evolution
> is a valid concept.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)*
>
> On Mar 13, 2019, at 12:10 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brent, for openers, the Representational Qualia Theory is synchronic,
> same space-time, whereas I am saying that the perception of a red
> strawberry, like everything else that we perceive, is based on a
> diachronic, across space-time process. Color vision in hominins evolved
> about 30 million years ago, prior to which vision was UV based or black and
> white seen using rods, hominins being nocturnal up to that point. So the
> shape, texture and flavor of strawberries would have been merged with their
> red color as a sequential process after the fact. The ability to see green
> evolved later, so if someone were to see a strawberry as green it would
> have occurred later in the evolutionary process. But more importantly, and
> all associations we have with red v green strawberries would have evolved
> over the course of evolution of the rods and cones of the retina, taste
> buds and brain historically. So the bottom line is that my
> cellular-molecular approach is a vertical integration, whereas the
> Representational Qualia Theory is 'horozontal'. This way of thinking about
> consciousness as 'historic' is consistent with George Mashour's observation
> (Mashour GA, Alkire MT. Evolution of consciousness: phylogeny, ontogeny,
> and emergence from general anesthesia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013 Jun
> 18;110 Suppl 2:10357-64.) that as the patient recovers from general
> anesthesia he/she recapitulates the evolution of consciousness. It is also
> consistent with Hughlings-Jackson's concept for the structural-functional
> evolution of the brain as phylogenetic. Hope this is helpful....but you
> probably have other comments/questions, so fire at will. John
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 9:03 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>> Thanks for this clarification of your thoughts on qualia.
>> So this seems like kind of a different abstract model of a way to think
>> about natural phenomenon, but doesn’t really have any direct relation to
>> actual physical qualities? I guess what I’m asking is would you agree with
>> the emerging expert consensus definition of qualia, that qualia are just
>> physical qualities we can be directly aware of, as defined in “Representational
>> Qualia Theory
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LwLyEF5x2lGzCpW98vvz8MYnpKYz3K2Y5Omy5hrwTrY&s=29Cgl8DY24fQ48ghzan1a_5cs2fVYJY1DQp1nXCi2wE&e=>”?
>> Or does your theory contradict anything described in that camp?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 6:42 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Brent and ToKers, I wanted to further clarify my take on what
>>> qualia are. I hadn't realized it because it was inherent to my explanation
>>> for the evolution of physiology, the cell internalizing factors in the
>>> environment based on the Endosymbiosis Theory (Lynn Margulis), in
>>> combination with cell-cell cooperation as the basis for multicellularity.
>>> The aggregate effect for the formation of physiological systems would
>>> naturally generate qualia because of the historic nature of the process,
>>> i.e. there are inherent relationships embedded in our physiology as a
>>> consequence of the historic relationships that it is founded on. And I
>>> would submit that it is those qualia that are in part or whole the origin
>>> of emergences, seemingly popping up out of nowhere when in fact they
>>> represent such interrelationships that derive from our past experiences as
>>> serial pre-adaptations or exaptations. I hope that is helpful.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 6:50 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi John,
>>>>
>>>> It seems to me your model of consciousness is leaving out the most
>>>> important part of consciousness, it's qualitative nature. For example, it
>>>> is a real possibility that some people (either naturally or engineered)
>>>> have inverted redness / greeness qualia knowledge. In other words, for
>>>> them, their redness is like your grenness. Their knowledge of the
>>>> strawberry, which they also call "red", has your grenness quality, and visa
>>>> versa for their knowledge of leaves. As we indicated before, color blind
>>>> people just have, either only your redness quale, or only your grenness
>>>> quale, (or something qualitatively different than both) to represent both
>>>> red and green things.
>>>>
>>>> For more info, you can 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=dtTmGh-lRsEvVj7vmzqmL9Opm9ex386Pb1yUj9is_3g&s=4iv4ObLT5lUAlcgGcqGQQICsS-xkY9ZaRhYtDSTqWqk&e=>
>>>> theory 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=dtTmGh-lRsEvVj7vmzqmL9Opm9ex386Pb1yUj9is_3g&s=8uQIDdL-PNybllbDfTqC1neOqJ4AKgB-q6sk2BSsoFo&e=>
>>>> ” showing how there is near unanimous consensus on the importance of
>>>> recognizing and modeling the real possibility of engineered inverted qualia
>>>> in any model of consciousness.
>>>>
>>>> In your model, what is a redness experience or redness quale? Is this
>>>> based on physics? If so, what are the necessary and sufficient set of
>>>> physics for a redness experience? How does this differ from the necessary
>>>> and sufficient set of physics, for a grenness experience?
>>>>
>>>> Am I wrong?
>>>>
>>>> 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
|
