I guess it would help to post a link to the article! 🤪

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scientificamerican.com_article_quantum-2Dmechanics-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dbody-2Dproblem-2Dand-2Dnegative-2Dtheology_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=XkHsikQgKo6w5iLOdQ8O5WSaBCeM-Z1K8coQneHYbIw&e= 


On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Cory David Barker <[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.
> ------------------------------
> Busy night, so I wanted to squeeze this in, so there might be spelling
> errors.
>
> This is the same conclusion that I came to when devising the architectonic
> of simulation.  Knowledge architectures and intelligence processes are
> actually variations of and a subset within a larger context of
> architectures and processes of the universe.
>
> I will give a simple example. One of the universal classes of intelligence
> is what I call "transduction." There is an input, throughput, and an
> output. In development models of human behaviour (and animal behavior in
> general), it is expressed as sensory motor activity. An entity is
> perturbed, and then that perturbation is interpreted through the
> throughput, and then there is an output of action.  This universal process
> is exhibited in a wide array of different magnitudes of complexity
> depending on whether we are talking about single celled organisms or multi
> celled organisms as complex as people. But the universal process is always
> there. And if you think about it comment it's actually required for any
> entity to have a separation between itself in the external environment and
> act according to things that happened to it. You can see how this is
> associated with neural networks, since the entire technological advancement
> is fundamentally based on transduction networks.
>
> In regards to logical operators, Michael Commons demonstrated how those
> operators are transitional steps within the development of one order of
> complexity into an increasing order of complexity, and Sarah Nora Ross
> demonstrated that they are fractal, they existed every increase of
> behavioural complexity. In my master's thesis, I showed how they are not
> just universal to humans, animals and machines, but also physical matter
> itself.
>
>  The way it goes, is that there is some sort of satisfiability, and then
> something new gets introduced into a system. And then the overall system
> either rejects or accepts it. That's the complementation "is" or negation
> "is not". Then, there is an oscillation between the different ideas,
> behaviours, or actions "or", and if the entity is able, it then attempts to
> synthesise a coordination between the 2 or more differences "and", and if
> it's successful it coordinates a higher order of complexity, "with".  At
> this point, there is satisfiability again, and the whole process repeats
> but within the context of the new complexity form.  There is more to it but
> this is the general basis of how it works.
>
>  In my model, there are 9 universal process forms, which go as follows:
> automation, transduction, concretion, abstraction, principiation,
> paradigmarization, panoptic, phasic, deitic.  My hypothesis has been that
> if we ever meet any sentient alien species, these universal classes of
> processes will be exhibited in their intelligence. And that these universal
> classes take expression in intelligence, but they exist in a larger context
> as the actual processes of the universe itself.  The only reason we can
> interface with the universe at all, is because we have the same universal
> forms in our intelligence as the universe actually uses to function.
>
> Cory
>
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 11:16 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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> As Jamie wrote: “I don't think every number between 1.0 and 1.1 is
>> listed in some neural database, so where is the knowledge, and the ideal
>> ends that guide all human behavior”
>>
>>
>>
>> This is an interesting topic to think about.  Logic ultimately underlies
>> any mathematical system.  There is probably some sort of logical
>> description of the numbers between 1.0 and 1.1.  Cantor gave a definition
>> of the infinite, and not everyone agrees with his line of reasoning.  At
>> least, we can say that there would have to be a logical algorithm through
>> which more fractional numbers could be uncovered (1.01, 1.02… and then
>> 1.001, 1.002… in the next iteration).  There is the question of infinite
>> series and how they are logically defined, but that’s not what I mean to
>> highlight here.  The question that most interests me is the connection
>> between logic and psychology.  Logic should be universal and valid for
>> everyone and not dependent upon anyone’s genes nor their developmental
>> history.  I think Husserl came up with the only reasonable solution, which
>> is probably an updated version of Platonism: we are basically tapping into
>> aspects of reality when we think.  Pure logic is an aspect of reality.
>> There is no logic for me vs. for you.  There is no logic for my culture vs.
>> yours.  Some people have cognitive defects which prevent them from thinking
>> logically.  Their point of view is not equally valid.
>>
>>
>>
>> I wrote a blog post on this a few weeks ago:
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.enlightenedworldview.com_connection-2Dbetween-2Dreason-2Dand-2Dpsychology_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=kLbjZrO5_rygf-am8fSmvTyuugMVrBB1UU8obzpvdWc&e= 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.enlightenedworldview.com_connection-2Dbetween-2Dreason-2Dand-2Dpsychology_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gxjH4JaYe9yDjOHU0DH-ipRyqcRGnMHufluaAfiRmgE&s=6snO-1bKAfWbg1kMiEaRwwAwrd2zh6ClFoRr6M2W4sM&e=>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Brandon Norgaard
>>
>> *Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project*
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2020 2:39 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: TOK RE: Which level is the source of human behavior?
>>
>>
>>
>> *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 Gregg,
>>
>>
>>
>> I love that you are working on getting the scientific language game
>> right, if only for the sake of the wider culture seeing eye to eye.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for this mythos or ground of being, I only meant that platonic realm
>> where math and ideas come, which I'm sure is also where our ends and
>> intentions are rooted, rather than level 3 nervous systems. (I don't think
>> every number between 1.0 and 1.1 is listed in some neural database, so
>> where is the knowledge, and the ideal ends that guide all human behavior,
>> but from that which can't be spoken in the dualistic language of egoic
>> intent?)
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm concerned that the ToK is so vast, yet never vast enough to integrate
>> all that it could to one, and the evolutionary journey to "getting the
>> language game right" will involve the entire global evolution of culture,
>> memes, data visualization, etc, ..and I'd guess that your work will soon
>> click into place with others, as numerous other language games begin to
>> fall apart as they fall together into one.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>> PS you replied:
>>
>>
>>
>>  "Mind/mental behavior is not reducible to Life/Brain any more than the
>> meaning of this sentence is reducible the adding up the letters."
>>
>>
>>
>> Exactly...and the whole sentence has an "end" in mind, which can be
>> represented as an idea in some mathematical space we can also come to
>> represent as an idea if we wanted to deep dive into whatever we're talking
>> about.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suppose what I mean by the cosmic self, or ground of being is simply
>> "that from which math comes from...as well as these simple ends, beliefs
>> and intentions"... The realm of ideas, all possibilities, which, being
>> utterly private, cannot as a whole be represented symbolically (at least
>> not against the seeking of falsification) as the referent is everywhere.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 4:26 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jamie,
>>
>>
>>
>>   According the ToK System, the ground of being that tie everything
>> together are the “glue fields” of “Energy” and “Information”.
>>
>>
>>
>>   I am unclear what might be meant by “exponentially inert or
>> irrelevant”. For me to write this email, all the all the dimensions of
>> existence (Culture/Person; Mind/Animal; Life/Organism; Matter/Object) need
>> to be aligned via integrated information or complexification in just the
>> right way to afford the conditions of possibility that allow us to engage
>> in the Culture-Person dimension of justification (which is how we interface
>> on this email).
>>
>>
>>
>>   Take Mind (neurocognition/phenomenology) relative to Brain
>> (neurophysiology). Mind/mental behavior is not reducible to Life/Brain any
>> more than the meaning of this sentence is reducible the adding up the
>> letters. However, the letters are required for it. Destroy the letters and
>> the sentence disappears. Likewise, a bullet through the brain results in
>> the complexity bubble of integrated information that is organized at the
>> mental dimension superimposed upon it to pop. So, surely the brain is not
>> inert or irrelevant—it is just not the whole thing.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Re the cosmic self or cosmic consciousness, I am agnostic about the
>> ultimate nature of the ground of being or its ultimate direction. I see
>> those as “pure metaphysical questions” rather than “metaphysical empirical”
>> questions, and thus properly placed in the domain of “mythos” rather than
>> natural science/philosophy. My naturalistic scientific side says that the
>> boundary condition of the Big Bang Energy Singularity is, well, the
>> boundary of the natural universe. Of course, as some speculation by Penrose
>> and others discussed on this list, perhaps there will be natural science
>> evidence for things that came before the Big Bang.
>>
>>
>>
>>   However, the language game of mythos is different and we can imagine a
>> “cosmic consciousness” as being the ground of being. Indeed, many spiritual
>> traditions point that direction. Thus, there is evidence for it and one can
>> find nourishment from that notion if one is mythically inclined. Its just
>> that it metaphysically becomes a very fuzzy concept. I embrace *the
>> concept of* God, as the ultimate eudiamonic endpoint, which for me is
>> symbolized by the Elephant Sun God. Of course, the natural science language
>> game has no problem with the concept of God. The substance of God or the
>> cosmic awakening/consciousness, well, again, that is a different language
>> game, all in the realm of mythos.
>>
>>
>>
>>   The key, from my vantage point, is to not make a category or language
>> game error. That is, the ToK System is first and foremost about getting the
>> language game of natural science correct *on its own terms*. Indeed,
>> that is where its power lies, which is why I have been so disappointed that
>> people who profess to be interested in science have for so long ignored or
>> dismissed what the ToK System says.
>>
>>
>>
>> Hope this makes sense. Let me know if it does or does not jive with your
>> frame of understanding.
>>
>>
>>
>> Warm regards,
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D
>> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2020 6:30 AM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Which level is the source of human behavior?
>>
>>
>>
>> *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.
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> In Gregg's model, it would seem to be implied that all human behavior is
>> rooted in the emergent level of mind, or animal behavior, that emerged with
>> nervous systems, which would suggest every level (of life and physics)
>> below as exponentially inert or irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>
>> Yet, I'm increasingly suspicious that our behavior, inside and out, is
>> rooted in the very ground of being (energy) somehow more expressed through
>> our nervous system, which is especially integrated yet complex enough to
>> express the cosmic "self".
>>
>>
>>
>> In other words, any search for the root of human behavour or self will
>> never end.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jamie
>>
>> PS: some extra quotes if interested:
>>
>>
>>
>> "Their is no protection to be found in the seeking of fault, neither
>> within, nor without. To seek fault is to ask for it."
>>
>>
>>
>> "Fear that others might think you are guilty when you know you aren't
>> seems to attract a guilty verdict even though you're not guilty".
>>
>>
>>
>> "Identification with fault or loss is the same thing as the Christian
>> concept of sin (missing your mark) and the true cause of physical illness
>> and death...no kidding."
>>
>> Fear is identification with loss
>>
>> Worry is identification with loss
>>
>> Humor is realized liberation from loss, and often at the expense of those
>> who still identify with some loss (superiority + relief theories of humor)
>>
>> Forgiveness of debtors is dis-identification with the loss of not, or not
>> potentially, getting paid back.
>>
>>
>>
>> The buddha self can't be named just as God Is nameless, which is why no
>> karma attaches to God - the true self of origin.
>>
>>
>>
>> Whatever we identify with in our minds, karma attaches to, based on
>> simple logic.
>>
>>
>>
>> "whoever identifies with loss, loss enjoys to ruin"
>>
>>
>>
>> "Behavior according to external morality is service to fear more than
>> love, thus distrust of one's own self. True morality is merely the way of
>> one's own heart, and trusting one's own self to be faultless, blameless and
>> perfect, knowing no good-enough reason to assert otherwise. "
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> 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
>> <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
>
-- 
Wishing you WELLth
Gien
Future Ancestor

Pull a thread here and you’ll find it’s attached to the rest of the world.
- Nadeem Aslam

www.stopresetgo.org
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_tps&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=zVYqZRPtt69iizCgxa1MS88fbzxqS4dHAn4_ONrbEZs&e= 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tippingpointfestival.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=3aJHZOz2F3o3Bx6_4P02kUa3mwP5HLcWo5A130tDflo&e= 
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_music-2Dfor-2Dchange&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=eYp-R_acBRPkxZ0Yl6nPxIXEv-z-iWFbIhVVRdU8cRQ&e= 
www.futureliving.institute
[log in to unmask]
intl ph: (1) 206 973-3924
SA ph: (+27) 79 589 6173
skype: geniepop

############################

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