*"Can you point to anything in your theory that might assist a neuro
experimentalists to bridge the explanatory gap, or know the actual physical
quality of what he is observing? Representational Qualia Theory certainly
does."*
So I just offered a way to 'bridge the explanatory gap' by seeing
physiologic properties at the cellular molecular level as evolved traits.
By identifying a Qualia as a function of such a property the mechanism for
the sensed interrelationships, such as seeing red and pain can be teased
out. I searched the literature on Representational Qualia Theory and saw no
experimental evidence for it, but maybe that's because I'm not using the
right terms? Please advise. John
On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 8:36 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> I’m having more trouble communicating with you, on this topic, than just
> about anyone else. In most cases, I’ve made far more progress by this point
> . But we can’t even seem to get started communicating about simple basic
> things, so I apologize. I guess I’m just not experienced with someone
> educated in your field.
>
>
>
> [With all due respect Brent, you were the one who introduced the image of
> the strawberry, not me. So it seems disingenuous of you to be criticizing
> me for alluding to the consciousness of strawberries.]
>
>
>
> By strawberry, I simply meant anything which has a physical surface
> property, in that it reflects or emits red light, or any red object.
>
>
>
> [ In my reduction and re-construction of physiologic evolution I can
> certainly accommodate two people having inverted redness/greenness quality
> physical knowledge in their brains due to differing physiologic histories.
> In the social sense it's called 'tastes', for example]
>
>
>
> OK, great. Here is something I see as a little evidence that you do
> understand about physical qualities, like redness being different than red
> qualities (when something reflects or emits red light) or the physical
> qualities of anything in the retina. Why then, in all of your other
> descriptions of qualia, do you never talk about this, but only things
> unrelated to this physical quale, like the physical qualities of “rods and
> cones”, which again, you can eliminate, but still experience a redness
> physical quality.
>
>
>
> So, I hear you admitting that there are physical qualities, in the brain,
> like redness and greenness, either one of which any brain could use (either
> naturally or engineered) to represent knowledge of objects that emit or
> reflect red light. So, let me ask you this. Does any of your descriptions
> of what qualia are, enable an experimentalist to objectively determine,
> which physics in the brain it is, that any particular brain is using, to
> represent knowledge of red objects with, in a way that you can detect
> whether someone does, or does not have inverted redness / greenness qualia?
>
>
> Can you point to anything in your theory that might assist a neuro
> experimentalists to bridge the explanatory gap, or know the actual physical
> quality of what he is observing? Representational Qualia Theory certainly
> does.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 3:31 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Brent, I will reply in [brackets] as if we are having a
>> conversation....
>>
>> *Yes, I’m sure you have a very powerful model of how to think about how
>> consciousness evolved in your diachronic way. But none of your diachronic
>> stuff models the qualitative nature of consciousness, nothing that might
>> enable us to bridge the explanatory gap, nothing in your theory models the
>> difference between abstract computer knowledge, and our phenomenal
>> knowledge, nothing in your theory describes how to observe
>> consciousness, especially it's qualitative nature, scientifically. I see
>> nothing in your descriptions that have anything to do with “qualia” or any
>> kind of "hard problem" of consciousness. You claim to talk about qualia
>> but all you ever talk about “red” as being a physical quality of something
>> that reflects red light. Or you talk about things in the retina. None of
>> this stuff has anything to do with the quality of our knowledge of red
>> things. Qualia are physical qualities of something in our brain we can
>> be directly aware of, and have nothing to do with what is in the eye,
>> light, or the physical nature of the surface of a strawberry. This latter
>> stuff is the only stuff you talk about, not qualia. If you remove
>> thestrawberry, the light, the eye, but still stimulate the optic nerve,
>> identical to the way the eye would, you will experience knowledge of
>> thestrawberry that has a physical redness quality. Nothing in your theory
>> talks about the physical qualities of anything in the brain, of which
>> qualitative knowledge is composed.*
>>
>>
>> [ With all due respect Brent, you were the one who introduced the image
>> of the strawberry, not me. So it seems disengenuous of you to be
>> criticizing me for alluding to the consciousness of strawberries.
>>
>>
>> Over and above such petty issues, if you follow my reasoning with regard
>> to the evolution of physiology, about which I have published 70+
>> peer-reviewed Journal articles over the last 20 years, it would only stand
>> to reason that qualia would be a consequence of this process. I cannot be
>> more explicit in my explanation, and if you don't understand, I feel badly,
>> but then again this is not an easy concept. I find it facile because I am
>> trained as a cell physiology and pathobiologist, so all that I say
>> expedites many unresolved problems in biology and medicine. I would refer
>> you to Waldemar's comments, he being a Pathologist by training, so thank
>> you for your valedation Waldemar.
>>
>>
>>
>> *It is a fact, agreed on by a near unanimous set of experts, that two
>> people (either naturally or engineered) could have inverted redness /
>> greenness quality physical knowledge in their brain. In other words, your
>> theory is completely blind to this fact, and is therefore completely qualia
>> blind. You talk a lot about “color”, “red”, qualia and so on. But in
>> every case, you are not talking anything about either the redness or
>> greenness quality which consciousness could be representing that “red”
>> knowledge with.*
>>
>>
>> [ In my reduction and re-construction of physiologic evolution I can
>> certainly accommodate two people having inverted redness/greenness quality
>> physical knowledge in their brains due to differing physiologic histories.
>> In the social sense it's called 'tastes', for example]
>>
>>
>>
>> *To find out what qualia are, how to detect qualia scientifically, how to
>> eff the ineffable (discover if my redness is like your grenness, or not)
>> perhaps you should read the definition of qualia, as agreed on by the
>> experts, as described in the “Representational Qualia Theory” camp
>> statement and the “Qualia are physical qualities” paper referenced in that
>> statement. Your theory has nothing to do with anything described there.*
>>
>>
>> [ Again, without sounding authoritarian or hubristic, I will restate the
>> fact that mine is a diachronic, non-descriptive approach to evolution and
>> physiology, so by definition my perspective will be radically different
>> from the Qualia experts. By analogy, Newton and Eistein each had their
>> views of Gravity, but their explanations were radically different. Both
>> were correct, but the descriptive view was limited to the attraction of
>> bodies (Newton), whereas the distortion of the fabric of space-time was far
>> more robust, linked mechanistically to Relatvity Theory.
>>
>>
>> I tried to demostrate the power of the historic perspective on Qualia in
>> my previous email, regarding rods and cones, nocturnal vs day vision, and
>> the evolution of red and subsequent green vision, which no doubt affected
>> Qualia, but you chose to ignore that line of thought. This argument is not
>> unlike Al Bennet's explanation for the evolution of warm bloodedness as
>> increased locomotor activity on land generating heat versus my integration
>> of genes and traits that appeared in land vertebrates, interconnected
>> through physiologic stress. Each of those interlinked cellular steps were
>> opportunities for the generation of Qualia. And if you read George Porges's
>> Polyvagal Theory (Porges SW. The Polyvagal Theory: phylogenetic
>> contributions to social behavior. Physiol Behav. 2003 Aug;79(3):503-13) you
>> will/not see that he, like me, is interrelating the evolution of structure
>> and function in the Autonomic Nervous System, linking the gut brain to
>> vocalization/language, similarly offering the opportunity to think in terms
>> of the related Qualia associated with the fight or flight mechanism. ]
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately, my perspective on Qualia is non-linear, so it is more
>> difficult to both explain and grasp. But here's another vantage point.
>> Terminal Addition is a well-recognized phenomenon in biology, the newest in
>> a series of adaptations in a series getting seemingly pasted on to the end.
>> The reason for that is explained in (Torday JS, Miller WB Jr. Terminal
>> addition in a cellular world. Prog Biophys
>>
>> Mol Biol. 2018 Jul;135:1-10), but more importantly, I used that rationale
>> to explain the phenomenon of "Phantom Limb", someone having lost a leg but
>> still feeling an itch in their big toe, for example. The reason that makes
>> sense in the context of Terminal Addition is that the 'additions' are part
>> and parcel of the epigenetic inheritance strategy of modifying the
>> phenotype to optimize the organism's interactions with its ever-changing
>> environment, the phenotype acting as an 'agent' for the collection of
>> epigenetic data from the environment. If the leg-less person fails to
>> interact with his/her environment in keeping with its epigenetic 'mission'
>> all of the up-stream traits from that amputated leg will also fail to
>> facilitate the epigenetic mission, and the organism will fail its
>> evolutionary mandate. I think that Phantom Limb is a corollary for Qualia.
>> I hope that was helpful. 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
>>
> ############################
>
> 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
|
