I know.
Are you talking about measuring psychology and orders of moral and
emotional complexity or measuring knowledge and skills, or both?
On 30-01-2022 06:52, Cory David Barker wrote:
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm talking about measuring task performance.
>
> C.
>
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2022, 11:44 PM Lene Rachel Andersen
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> the content is safe.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You are jumping from psychology to knowledge now, right?
>
> On 30-01-2022 06:21, Cory David Barker wrote:
>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
>> and know the content is safe.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Pedagogues, teachers and andragogues are beyond what? Measuring?
>>
>> If you mean that there needs to be education reform, I’m with
>> you. But we will always need measurements in education. Do you
>> really want airplane pilots flying you, drivers on the road near
>> you, and doctors prescribing or operating on you whom haven’t
>> passed their exams that prove their knowledge and abilities?
>>
>> C.
>>
>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 10:40 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
>>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
>>> and know the content is safe.
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> So, you operate from an order of complexity where measuring is
>>> meaningful to you; generally, pedagogues, teachers, and
>>> andragogues are beyond that.
>>>
>>> Warmly,
>>>
>>> Lene
>>>
>>> On 29-01-2022 21:14, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
>>>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender
>>>> and know the content is safe.
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Ah okay. Yeah, there are different reasons why people make
>>>> measurement tools, and different reasons for why people measure
>>>> others. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad.
>>>>
>>>> It often comes down to making a distinction between hierarchy
>>>> of power vs hierarchy of complexity, which are two different
>>>> things. But if someone can coordinate with a higher order of
>>>> complexity than someone else, then it is the natural result
>>>> that there is power involved. No way around it. Thing is
>>>> though, higher order of complexity of ethics general dissolve
>>>> exploitation around paradigmatic stage, though I’m pretty sure
>>>> you know this already, having written a post with Gregg about
>>>> Kohlberg. Tolbert showed that people who coordinate cognitive
>>>> and ethics paradigmatically don’t abuse their coordinative
>>>> power (alchemist and ironist stages). The issue is high
>>>> cognitive and low ethics, that’s when there are problems.
>>>>
>>>> I worked as a k-12 tutor for a couple years, tutoring across
>>>> learning domains. I think people should use what models they
>>>> find useful in teaching. If kids are happy and learning, what
>>>> difference does it make. I used MHC all the time, and it worked
>>>> as advertised. But I am not a hard empiricist, I prefer
>>>> methodological pluralism. I’ve read some of Bloom’s work in
>>>> years past. I thought it was okay. I did a full correspondence
>>>> between it and my own model at one point.
>>>>
>>>> C.
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 1:41 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
>>>>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>>>>> sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Cory,
>>>>>
>>>>> There is already a profession that works in this area and
>>>>> knows how to deal with this; rarely anybody pays attention to
>>>>> them: pedagogues, teachers, and andragogues.
>>>>>
>>>>> They don't measure people (unless politicians and economists
>>>>> insist on it); they interact with people around the shared
>>>>> third and they have different professional educations for
>>>>> pedagogues working with toddlers, teachers educating children,
>>>>> and teachers and andragogues educating and working with adults.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are plenty of non-measuring ways of estimating how each
>>>>> individual is operating and what kind of education is
>>>>> meaningful to them. The most famous and widely used is
>>>>> probably Bloom's Taxonomy: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bloomstaxonomy.net_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MHGPZCHURne26SBACvoMXVjzXhQSQWb2wgxFfjS3324&s=64NyOybqMvLHARRo2aBXVVycFjtskD2l5A6nnypvWDk&e=
>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.bloomstaxonomy.net_&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sd-RuVwEsPyTab28G9xlM9ItFjBmRAwzhOpkieXE7R0&s=pAXf61u-40WMLSe3t3rqm11dUcdPHhylYR8iHfI0ceA&e=>
>>>>>
>>>>> / Lene
>>>>>
>>>>> On 29-01-2022 20:21, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
>>>>>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>>>>>> sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> @ Lene
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you don’t want general definition of the purpose of
>>>>>> measurement, you want my personal take?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For me, the purpose is for fostering the natural evolutionary
>>>>>> processes of individuals and societies. The purpose of the
>>>>>> creation of MHC was to get clear about the natural sequential
>>>>>> order of increasing behavioral complexity, what the
>>>>>> characteristics of behavior are at those orders, and how
>>>>>> transitions from one order to another actually works. The
>>>>>> purpose of measuring behavior with MHC is to get clear about
>>>>>> where individuals and societies are at in their complexity
>>>>>> development, to get really precise where some orders of
>>>>>> complexity and their corresponding behavioral forms can solve
>>>>>> tasks where others cannot. If an individual or any scale of
>>>>>> social interaction has the inability to solve a task, we have
>>>>>> a reliable means to contextualize it, empirically. It is a
>>>>>> model of universal patterns of behavior that help inform us
>>>>>> how to move development along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not
>>>>>>> click links or open attachments unless you recognize the
>>>>>>> sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, what would be the purpose?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 29-01-2022 19:37, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>>>>>>>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Measurement&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MHGPZCHURne26SBACvoMXVjzXhQSQWb2wgxFfjS3324&s=j4OC3MT6YY_gdVS0W21qoiFXQqTpguWFcLkYF-yWVEk&e=
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Measurement&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=j7pOiE9nG6NGduaXB-rvV2AzspKiVO0L5Ldi75JXx2w&s=ZbaYPx500rQykKSx8YG5KjdfiFwkui1YBVpm1pKr0lQ&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:26 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>>>>>>>>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would be the purpose of measuring?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 29-01-2022 18:46, Cory David Barker wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>>>>>>>>>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, I worked on several papers with him, including one
>>>>>>>>>> on it’s axioms and fundamental mathematics. MHC measures
>>>>>>>>>> behavior, it is not mentalistic, which is to say MHC
>>>>>>>>>> measures actions, and does not make assumptions about
>>>>>>>>>> interior action that cannot be directly observed.
>>>>>>>>>> Anywhere there are organisms, social interactions, or
>>>>>>>>>> machines, MHC is universally applicable across
>>>>>>>>>> domains. MHC is domain-free, and would therefore measure
>>>>>>>>>> the observable behavioral performance of the construction
>>>>>>>>>> and application of things like investment theory,
>>>>>>>>>> justification systems, and the Chomsky hierarchy.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Michael Commons did write on stage and value. Sara Ross
>>>>>>>>>> and Michael Commons wrote some papers on hierarchical
>>>>>>>>>> complexity of politics too. I carried these kinds of
>>>>>>>>>> things over when Saranya Ramakrishna, myself, and others
>>>>>>>>>> wrote the paper on behavioral complexity of immigrant and
>>>>>>>>>> native behaviors towards each other. Saranya and I scored
>>>>>>>>>> the complexity of spiral dynamics, but we ran out of
>>>>>>>>>> space and didn’t include it. It turns out that spiral
>>>>>>>>>> dynamics does line up with MHC stages, more than less.
>>>>>>>>>> But again, MHC is domain-free, so values themselves are
>>>>>>>>>> contents of behaviors, what behaviors operate on and
>>>>>>>>>> with, and therefore value motivated behavior only has
>>>>>>>>>> association with an MHC stage where it is observable. So
>>>>>>>>>> we wouldn’t say a value is a specific stage per se, but
>>>>>>>>>> just say a value is observed to be enacted at this or
>>>>>>>>>> these stages.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2022, at 11:29 PM, Brandon Norgaard
>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>>>>>>>>>>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Cory. That’s pretty deep stuff. Much of this I
>>>>>>>>>>> imagine comes from your mentor Commons and some of it
>>>>>>>>>>> you have formulated yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>> I was figuring, and I think this is what Brendan meant
>>>>>>>>>>> with his original post, that MHC is not really the
>>>>>>>>>>> metric you would use for measuring the complexity of the
>>>>>>>>>>> mind, or for comparing the complexity of the behavioral
>>>>>>>>>>> capability of organism within the mind plane of ToK. I
>>>>>>>>>>> figure that MHC is related, but the implementation of
>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral investment dynamics provides unique phenomena
>>>>>>>>>>> wherein there is more going on than can be explained
>>>>>>>>>>> through task complexity alone. Integrated information Φ
>>>>>>>>>>> would also be related, but I imagine there could be some
>>>>>>>>>>> sort of metric that somehow combines these. This would
>>>>>>>>>>> level of meaning making capability within the organism.
>>>>>>>>>>> The other side of this would be the justification
>>>>>>>>>>> systems, which I figure would correspond more to the
>>>>>>>>>>> “code” inner dimension identified within the Hanzi
>>>>>>>>>>> books. Again, MHC is related, but there is probably more
>>>>>>>>>>> to it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have to
>>>>>>>>>>> figure that the Chomsky hierarchy has something to do
>>>>>>>>>>> with that, since that is a system wherein grammar
>>>>>>>>>>> systems can be hierarchically ranked in terms of
>>>>>>>>>>> complexity of the language games that they are capable
>>>>>>>>>>> of. I’m only aware of the original version, which would
>>>>>>>>>>> have all human cultural code systems ranked at the top,
>>>>>>>>>>> but perhaps there is an enhanced hierarchy of language
>>>>>>>>>>> games / symbol systems that would offer a more formal
>>>>>>>>>>> metric for measuring the complexity of different
>>>>>>>>>>> cultural code systems.
>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon//
>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of*Cory David
>>>>>>>>>>> Barker
>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, January 28, 2022 1:34 PM
>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you recognize
>>>>>>>>>>> the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> @ Brandon
>>>>>>>>>>> In order to do measure correctly with MHC, one has to be
>>>>>>>>>>> very specific with no black boxes. There are a couple of
>>>>>>>>>>> architectural levels that would have to get measured –
>>>>>>>>>>> first is the interpersonal level with the individual,
>>>>>>>>>>> interpersonal dynamics between individuals, and overall
>>>>>>>>>>> interpersonal systems consisting of all individuals in
>>>>>>>>>>> the culture. The culture operating as a whole begins a
>>>>>>>>>>> new architectural level (carrying forward interpersonal
>>>>>>>>>>> sub-behaviors), it’s relationship to other cultures, and
>>>>>>>>>>> how that culture interacts in the larger system of
>>>>>>>>>>> cultures in general.
>>>>>>>>>>> One needs to measure all three, not just by matching
>>>>>>>>>>> stage definitions with behavior, but actually counting
>>>>>>>>>>> the actual complexity stacks and being clear about the
>>>>>>>>>>> transition dynamics at play, because usually people
>>>>>>>>>>> exhibit different stages for different things, and are
>>>>>>>>>>> usually not at equilibrium at a particular stage but are
>>>>>>>>>>> in transition between them.
>>>>>>>>>>> People’s behaviors are going to score all over the
>>>>>>>>>>> place, but there will be a highest ordering behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> coordinating lower order behaviors, both individually,
>>>>>>>>>>> and as a group. The highest ordering behavior shared by
>>>>>>>>>>> all group members would be its maximum stage of
>>>>>>>>>>> performance, but you wouldn’t end up with a single
>>>>>>>>>>> number for an individual, interpersonal dynamic, or
>>>>>>>>>>> culture, you’d end up with a chart of behavioral
>>>>>>>>>>> complexity distribution.
>>>>>>>>>>> While there may be some culture members who operate at a
>>>>>>>>>>> higher order of complexity in a given culture, there
>>>>>>>>>>> will typically be others who operate at less complex
>>>>>>>>>>> orders of complexity, whom may downward assimilate the
>>>>>>>>>>> higher order task performance of others in their
>>>>>>>>>>> culture, resulting in complexity loss, because those who
>>>>>>>>>>> have not developed out of latency the higher stage
>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral forms lack the ordering type of complexity
>>>>>>>>>>> required to symmetrically represent what they copy. It
>>>>>>>>>>> can also go in reverse, where people with higher orders
>>>>>>>>>>> of complexity can allow lower, less complex ordering
>>>>>>>>>>> direct the higher order behaviors. This downward and
>>>>>>>>>>> upward thing I’ve been calling diagonal complexity, to
>>>>>>>>>>> go along with horizontal and vertical complexity.
>>>>>>>>>>> There are more variables to account for of course, but
>>>>>>>>>>> this is the starting point. It’s not impossible to
>>>>>>>>>>> measure, in fact one can eye-ball it in real time if one
>>>>>>>>>>> practices. However, eye-balling it does not produce
>>>>>>>>>>> empirical evidence. No matter how accurate one is, it is
>>>>>>>>>>> still anecdotal in practice, so to get that empirical
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence require considerable effort. Anecdotal
>>>>>>>>>>> eye-balling is okay, just need to be clear about it so
>>>>>>>>>>> it isn’t presented as empirical when it isn’t. Empirical
>>>>>>>>>>> evidence is so important because it can get verified
>>>>>>>>>>> through replication of the instrument that generated the
>>>>>>>>>>> data.
>>>>>>>>>>> MHC has plenty of math for measuring this sort of thing.
>>>>>>>>>>> C.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:17 PM, Brandon Norgaard
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Nicholas. I’m interested to hear what Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>>> might think of this whenever he might have time to
>>>>>>>>>>>> comment. I’m kind of thinking that being able to
>>>>>>>>>>>> approximately measure the complexity level of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural code / justification system and the behavioral
>>>>>>>>>>>> investment complexity could help therapists and
>>>>>>>>>>>> community leaders diagnose shadow issues and formulate
>>>>>>>>>>>> and implement remediation interventions. I can
>>>>>>>>>>>> anticipate multiple possible objections to this line of
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking. One would be that this would be just pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>> much impossible and it would be a wasted effort at
>>>>>>>>>>>> measuring a granularity where there are already many
>>>>>>>>>>>> well-established practices that have demonstrated
>>>>>>>>>>>> effectiveness in achieving these sorts of positive
>>>>>>>>>>>> results and they don’t require anyone to measure these
>>>>>>>>>>>> phenomena as such. Also some might object that
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempting this sort of thing would simply be
>>>>>>>>>>>> counterproductive, either because you’d end up creating
>>>>>>>>>>>> some sort of social hierarchy wherein some people are
>>>>>>>>>>>> more developed in their cultural code and/or some
>>>>>>>>>>>> people have their behavioral investment sorted out
>>>>>>>>>>>> better than others. I can see how these metrics could
>>>>>>>>>>>> be problematic and difficult to implement. I don’t mean
>>>>>>>>>>>> to open Pandora’s box by following this line of
>>>>>>>>>>>> inquiry. I have to figure that any psycho-technology
>>>>>>>>>>>> or tools for knowledge development could be used in
>>>>>>>>>>>> good or bad ways.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of*Nicholas
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lattanzio
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Thursday, January 27, 2022 12:55 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU. Do
>>>>>>>>>>>> not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon,
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am certain there is pragmatic use for measurement, I
>>>>>>>>>>>> am not trying to say that we shouldn't measure or try
>>>>>>>>>>>> to predict. What I am saying is that there are already
>>>>>>>>>>>> laws of nature which we are under the influence of in
>>>>>>>>>>>> such a way that we cannot account for their effect on
>>>>>>>>>>>> our measurements. Essentially we need to stay in our
>>>>>>>>>>>> lane as much as possible. As with all of us, my entire
>>>>>>>>>>>> life I've seen attempt after attempt after attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>> find new ways to model the universe and none of them
>>>>>>>>>>>> end up being more than a satisficing proposal. I can
>>>>>>>>>>>> accept that there is a model that would work. Again
>>>>>>>>>>>> like all of us I live as part and witness to that model
>>>>>>>>>>>> all day every day, it's not total chaos. The one thing
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have yet to see is what we're actually trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>> measure at this point. If we were talking just the
>>>>>>>>>>>> physical universe, really most of where we're at now
>>>>>>>>>>>> and down the ToK, I could buy into that. But when you
>>>>>>>>>>>> say culture is the current metric, what the heck does
>>>>>>>>>>>> that mean? What is that? Ostensibly there is some form
>>>>>>>>>>>> of mental (mind) existence to culture as ideas and
>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps those ideas have a physical representation that
>>>>>>>>>>>> could be measured on the level of biology or
>>>>>>>>>>>> physico-chemical, but that doesn't do much other than
>>>>>>>>>>>> to deconstruct, it does not shape the approaching
>>>>>>>>>>>> critical point in our development other than taking a
>>>>>>>>>>>> ruler and beating ourselves over the head with it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Until someone can show me experientially what we're
>>>>>>>>>>>> attempting to put into terms/frames of thermodynamics
>>>>>>>>>>>> and cybernetics and all sorts of fancy modernist
>>>>>>>>>>>> epistemological advances/insights, then I'm not
>>>>>>>>>>>> convinced it is meant to be done in that way (e..g.,
>>>>>>>>>>>> show me an objective unit of culture). Maybe that's the
>>>>>>>>>>>> point though, maybe we persist in this until free
>>>>>>>>>>>> energy inevitably breaks through or finds the way 'to
>>>>>>>>>>>> the next level' by sheer probability. I know I don't
>>>>>>>>>>>> know. But I also know it'll happen either way,
>>>>>>>>>>>> regardless of what "we" do about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:18 AM Lene Rachel Andersen
>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Very cool, Brandon, thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>>> With regards to information transfer in culture, there
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are two kinds:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Vertically from one generation to the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Darwinian)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Horizontally from one person to the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Lamarckian), which is WAY faster than the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> vertical transfer of genes and information, which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is why our brains can no longer keep up with the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> cultural transformation (and just a curious fact:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> my next book is about this) :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lene
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25-01-2022 08:10, Brandon Norgaard wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I added some content to the enhanced PTB table. At
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first I just copied over what Brendan had offered
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> regarding the metric for the evolutionary development
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at each plane. Gregg said he disagreed with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integrated information, Φ for mind, since that exists
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> within all planes to some extent, and also MHC within
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture, since that is another metric that can be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied to a wide range of life forms. I’m not sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how to sort this out, but I added an amendment to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> both of those cells to indicate that the mind metric
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should also take into account behavioral investment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity and the culture metric should take into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> account the complexity of the cultural code. Also I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> added two new rows based on what Daniel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Schmachtenberger was talking about on several podcast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appearances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MHGPZCHURne26SBACvoMXVjzXhQSQWb2wgxFfjS3324&s=_uKUtUEb0x1GHdkya6XvOgoxoMqelExxHeaUB3DvQ6U&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rDCebvfYF7wMiWfFnDrDixheoDOqRGIJhhtAS0caZ3E&s=ckAi1c0Qb-_t8H0YT1kXJelKeJ1jQeyu7wrKFyG3bAA&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also Nicholas, you bring up some very good points,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but I do think that this is likely going to have some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utility at some point. People could have similarly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wondered back in the 19^th century what was the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> utility of measuring things like electrical current.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It probably wasn’t immediately apparent to everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what these people were up to. I’ll admit that I can’t
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right now think of a practical application of having
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some sort of metric that is applied to the planes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence within TOK/PTB or to the evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process in general, but I figure this could prove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> useful eventually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> discussion<[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of*Nicholas Lattanzio
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Friday, January 21, 2022 7:06 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to expand on Gregg's last point there and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see what others think. As I strongly agree that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are at that precarious point in evolution and human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> development where that window into direct/indirect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but intentional influencing of our own evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> process can be done. I dont think I've seen anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arguing explicitly against that on this listserv.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree by extension with the dire importance of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our taking action during this time (enact the future
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the potential to the actual).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where my metaphysics, Nondual Empiricism, differs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from UTOK in this area is a small but crucial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distinction. That yes we are in this position, can,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and should do something about it, and can reasonably
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree what to do based on more or less 'objectively'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moral and ethical principles that bring us into a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> oneness with our innate wisdom - which could only be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accessed as a feedback loop operating from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person/culture plane of complexity on the most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental orders of our and the universes nature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through an absolute mess of interactions and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emergences across and within orders of nature (what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purport here, RE the OP, is not worth measuring for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sake of some ephemeral window of utility we'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> otherwise miss).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I have mentioned to several of those I have sought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> advice and insight from, I don't believe in free will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as such, I have a sense of agency, it has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intelligence, and it's ontogical root of awareness is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same root of all existence (not panpsychism, see
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ruper Spira's consciousness/model, it's more like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> panenpsychism).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We see this play out in terms of organization at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> culture/person plane as justification systems, i.e.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is the organization of our justifications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (internal working model, schemas, etc) that inform
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our decision-making beyond the biophysical processes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that enable such higher-order thoguth (Mind3). If you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> went down a level of complexity, BIT represents the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nervous systems organization as a manner of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitively avoiding pain and se see king satiety
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (love at that level is survival). Going down to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> biological level we see retention, selection, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation as literally evolutionary decison-making. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> haven't fully worked out this process/relational
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ontology for the lower levels quite yet because the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feedback loops become exponential (I would argue that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is where the room for something like MHC may still
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provide utility).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Zak and others mentioned what I call the Golden
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread or cosmic golden thread, the ONE epistemic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ontically expressed at each order, or however you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to say it. So I feel that even though we have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this agency and at least feeling of decision-making,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is that intelligent cosmic golden thread that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enacting through our agency the things we call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conscious behaviors, and to be experiential in touch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that process is nondual knowing, not separating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself from the natural intelligent processes of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the universe whose context owns your relative
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existence. It is the same thing as selection,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retention, variation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one except a deeply misleaded panpsychist would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argue that genes themselves consciously or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> intellectually decided to retain themselves or vary,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or be pruned away, which leaves the case for an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary intelligence of sensitivity quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compelling. So I while I think we will enact these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary changes to bring about the next order of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity (which let me remind us all has already
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happened because time is not only linear, this is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vertical progression), I don't think we are actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> choosing what we're doing, with that we being us as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual agents of choice. I think it is still that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive intelligence doing the work, that is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> real "us" after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But because of the incredible allure and beauty of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> our conscious experience combined with the unique
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of self-referential qualities that mind 3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enables of our phenomenogical experience which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> literally creates the ego as proprioceptive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identification ("I am this body and its physical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits are mine") and identification with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content/foreground over context/background, if there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is any enactment for us to do it is to realize these
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels of identification as phenomenological
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> structures representing the filters of our lower
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> levels of complexity, which we just lump into 1 bit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called "I."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The real I is consciousness itself, the rest is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> misidentification with our own natural processes as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mere instruments of our humanness, and they will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never be actualized from purely within the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> person/culture plane.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Measurement is the result of JUST, which is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information organizing and sense-making process of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evolution at the person/culture plane. To enact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measurement is to then reduce humanness, it's a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> negative feedback loop. We must transcend measurement
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we are to truly enact the actualized human, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that process, I argue, cannot itself be measured.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rant over. Thank you for endulging me. Please point
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out any errors you see in my thinking. I think it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysics like mine and many others that Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would classify as scientific worldview D which UTOK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs to align with versus more of the same in other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3rd person empricisms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:13 AM Henriques, Gregg -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great discussions, folks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am slammed right now, so I need to be brief.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brendan, I am a fan of Chaisson’s cosmic evolution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in that it gives a nice picture of the evolution of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexity from a natural science/physics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective. I have corresponded with him quite a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit. He gives a crucial epistemological vantage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> point for our ontology, but not a holistic one. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> free energy rate density flow principle is a great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physical-material metric for complexity and, if you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know the book cosmic evolution, it aligns very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> closely. Indeed, here is an alignment between a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphic in his 2001 book Cosmic Evolution, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something I drew a few years earlier (in either 1999
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or 2000) as I was playing around with the ToK lens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Big History:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chaisson’s frame is naturalistic-material and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> although it aligns with the complexity sciences, it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> does not bring in the complex adaptive systems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking necessary for a full bridge. Put another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way, because it gives a somewhat reductive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicalist causation picture of behavior writ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large, it fails to effectively frame I have recently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been calling “epistemic functions.” These are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes that emerge that generate fundamentally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new behavioral patterns of self-organization. In the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vision logic of the Tree of Knowledge System,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chaisson’s system fails to “see” why/that Life,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mind, and Culture are different dimensions of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complexification (or planes of existence). He was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> involved in Big History and that is a standard blind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spot in that frame. Chaisson also fails to see the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Animal-Mental dimension as a clearly identifiable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plane of complexification. Thus, the system is blind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the problem of psychology and fails to address
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Enlightenment Gap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Brandon, I like your connections to genetics,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> integrated information theory, and MHC. That said, I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would not have aligned those exactly in the way you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did. The reason is that integrated information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> theory and aspects of MHC will be present in all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complex adaptive systems. I could elaborate on why,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but will punt on this issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The bottom line is that the free energy rate density
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle is a great metric for complexity in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Matter dimension.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we have bio-epistemic complexification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes as a function of genes, cells, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> organisms, giving rise to living behavior patterns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or Life.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we have psyche-epistemic complexification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes as a function of neuronal nets, animals,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and animal groups, giving rise to animal-mental
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavioral patterns, or Mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then we have human social-epistemic complexification
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> processes as a function of propositions, persons,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and cultures giving rise to the human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification-investment-influence patterns, or Culture.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From where I am sitting on the bridge of the UTOK
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> System, we are now getting to a place where we can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have unique psyche epistemic frames to hold the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human subjective perspective on the world (i.e., the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iQuad Coin) and generalized scientific behavioral
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> frames that provide a third person
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> onto-epistemological grounding (ToK System). We can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bridge the Enlightenment epistemic Gap between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psyche and physics and achieve a much more unified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach to knowledge that can then orient toward
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wisdom in the back half of the 21^st century. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is, with the right frame, we can consciously evolve
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in ways that were not available to us historically.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Last, on Mon 1/31, I will be releasing a UTOKing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with Mike Mascolo, where he offers is rich view of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> psychology, human experience and meaning making, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vision for how we might correct the structure of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> academy and move toward a healthier co-active
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> co-construction of reality toward the good. His
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fundamental frame is that relationships are key and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they are key all the way down and all the way up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *From:*theory of knowledge society discussion
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>*On Behalf Of*T.R.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pickerill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:*Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:25 PM
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of JMU.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do not click links or open attachments unless you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mmm, measurement and proof, I relate this to someone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> who can only read sheet music vs a Free Jazz
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> improvisation; when you stop counting you listen to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and for relationships, and play, fall, and create.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "All you have are your relationships." Tim Pickerill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Timothy Rollin Pickerill
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Business -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MHGPZCHURne26SBACvoMXVjzXhQSQWb2wgxFfjS3324&s=dEOvbf4aCNe_TbzWO51_JxVi9aFRxMwDyrDo5vRkGkM&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=WsAAJ-w-anFnLRIPkI-CrooYxKbftZ12CPL-X-fIp1I&e=>/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Photography
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MHGPZCHURne26SBACvoMXVjzXhQSQWb2wgxFfjS3324&s=PX1sHBEldGl6Xa2wrsswR7cx_tempUkKukMrxa5gDyw&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=E5gaKBkyi1hHAc8LlYTCnDBtdjuUt_6IiDRKFC2MLD0&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art -https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=MHGPZCHURne26SBACvoMXVjzXhQSQWb2wgxFfjS3324&s=-KCXnG33ZRW7CunP6p_v9V5EVby_Gs7nc59FEcCpIUI&e=
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=7dt55OEDu-EMNqhkZhNCYnNJJM4FmI99K2asaIdlQqo&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 646-299-4173 (cell)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:12 PM michael kazanjian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope you take this as a compliment or similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remark, not criticism. Your notion that the people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are too interested in measurement, sounds like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feynman, who criticized math people as too
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concerned with "proof."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting insight.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Michael M. Kazanjian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, January 20, 2022, 10:03:12 PM CST,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas Lattanzio <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yall are too concerned with measuring things IMO. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get it I do from an inquisitive naturalistic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perspective, I just don't see what the utility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually is (I mean that very literally, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pejoratively or flippantly).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For example, by definition of MHC (thanks for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making it clear what we were even talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here, took me a few times through the thread to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notice the links Zak shared), a higher level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> order can only be defined in terms of the next
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lowest order. With increasing evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitivity these orders are only going to become
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more varied, stratified, and virtually useless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> independent of each other. They only have use in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of each other, so in that sense I totally
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see the enactment aspect of this regarding our
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique positioning in the evolutionary scale of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> things (things that have come before us). It very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much falls in line with UTOK and probably the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metaphysics of most everyone on this listserv, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it doesn't serve a purpose as a measurement. That
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thing, that onto-epistemogical golden cosmic thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not adequately reduced to binary (or bimodal)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actualizations. If we are to learn anything from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this age of measurement it's that we need a better
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way to be in touch with potential, the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unactualized. Enactment does that as the operating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ontological process that transcends the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being-becoming dialectic.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now if we are looking at efficiency, sure, let's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> figure out how many bits we need to acheive this or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that and strive to encourage that, though that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never not been the case for evolution or reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can certainly say that anything could have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done more simply or less simply, but if it's done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then it was done exactly the way it needed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> done and that is exactly the information we use to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> judge the necessary bits in the first place. An
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electron is an electron is an electron, let's call
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it one bit. Now it's entangled and in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> superposition, how many bits is that? Well it would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> depend on what order of complexity you're talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about, and of course the meaning or implications
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> differ across and within orders, MHC appears to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contend that as well, what are we going to do with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that information? The we that could do something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with that information IS that information as an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expression itself of the cosmic golden thread or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever you want to call it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I mean I guess this is what people do so maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the whole point, but we can't answer Lee's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> questions about free energy with it since we would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to use the terms of the order of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature/complexity just below free energy. Any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attempt to do that is abstraction at the level of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mind and further at culture. Which is the mosquito
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and which is the iron bull?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:05 PM leesimplyquality.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=c-FOqQjjXV0Q_DM0rvb23rf2afV92WcqQIfecZF3b1I&s=QZ7sxChQwiWJjj1Yazke_iTKmRQxo8WQgBbOTndCUPI&e=><[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION:*This email originated from outside of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My understanding is that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> At 32,000 genes, the carrot genome is a good deal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer than that of humans (somewhere between
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20,000 and 25,000 genes).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore I am curious about the Life complexity
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metric of genomic complexity, C.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the complexity different from the number of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> genes in the genome?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If so, how is it measured?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I think of entropy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Entropy&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SS4gTnrBxuAodN_nyCCz7E2sRQbF8iI9-mg5W9dhKaw&s=5rHzMMo1Z5f9gPabLuE6C0Uektqi5dFogSpzvHLUUtg&e=> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the typically used measure of “disorder”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (often interpreted as complexity).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How does entropy compare to free energy as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure of complexity?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lee Beaumont
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 20, 2022, at 7:41 PM, Brandon Norgaard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *CAUTION: *This email originated from outside of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JMU. Do not click links or open attachments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless you recognize the sender and know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content is safe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Brendan. A few months ago, I gave a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presentation at one of your book club events of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> table I put together starting from Gregg’s
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Periodic Table of Behavior (PTB) and added
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content from his discussion with Jordan Hall and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also from some other sources such as the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Conscious Evolution podcast. I just added the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> content from your first message and I now have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the table publicly available for everyone to view
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and add comments:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <div style="margin: 0in;
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or
> click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> <http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1>
>
--
*Lene Rachel Andersen*
Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung Network
Full member of the Club of Rome
*Nordic Bildung*
Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
www.nordicbildung.org
+45 28 96 42 40
############################
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
|
