Joe et al.,

Thanks for the plug, and the insights!

Dave

On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi folks. I'll weigh in at this point with some observations, hopefully
> connecting to the broader themes of our list. We are a diverse group that
> spans the arts & humanities, social and natural sciences. Our passions
> include the proverbial triad of "the good, the true, and the beautiful," as
> well as how these various evaluative modes might be integrated and advance
> a broader, 21st-century enlightenment project. I suspect that many of our
> biographies intersect with our historical/generational locations and
> cultural backgrounds to help explain our particular interests in the
> different fields of knowledge we have pursued. One of the great benefits of
> the list, then (on which I have previously commented), consists of learning
> from others who have shared some of their work and thoughts about matters
> with which we are all less familiar. For example, at present I am
> currently working on a "deep dive" into John's work, which I find
> interesting and challenging. Similarly, the other presentations from the
> ToK conference Gregg organized have already stimulated further
> cross-fertilization, a more conciliatory understanding of knowledge
> development, and possibly some collaborative work as well.
>
>
> Both John and Gregg have offered some rather compelling meta-analytic
> perspectives on cosmological evolution -- which are open to discussion,
> critique, and refinement -- while others have contributed more specific
> theses and observations relevant to their different fields. And I must
> confess that Dave Pruett ("a former NASA researcher (and) an award-winning
> computational scientist and emeritus professor of mathematics at James
> Madison University" - sorry to brag on your behalf, Dave!) has already
> inspired me to want to develop and offer a capstone course on "the big
> questions" (e.g., "why are we here" -- which has many different meanings
> and interpretations!) at my own university. I love how Dave has been able
> to offer a course that examines the grand cosmological question from both a
> "mythological" (cultural) and a "scientific" perspective, as he described
> at the conference. If you didn't see that, then check out his TED talk
> "Ripples in the Cosmic Web."
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CAwfF7pleGvLwTJo_6r2zBltaGEMXTu_0sHf1g987o0&s=fIuSvYGkydKA0TAntWtP0Pr1I-2Q0Hk11rR8zWZ8oRE&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs&s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs&s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
> Ripples in the Cosmic Web | Dr. David Pruett | TEDxJMU
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs&s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
> www.youtube.com
> Ripples in the Cosmic Web | Dr. David Pruett | TEDxJMU David Pruitt is a
> professor in the James Madison University Honors College. This talk was
> given at a TEDx event ...
>
> As Dave briefly mentions, one of our greatest challenges, *especially* in
> diverse countries such as the U.S. & Canada, is the search for a common
> narrative, or what Harari describes as "shared myths" (including science).
> Gregg's Tree of Knowledge approach (and subsequent work), John's challenge
> to Darwinian theory (including his paper "The Singularity of Nature"), and
> Steve Q's sharing of Stephen Pepper's World Hypotheses all challenge us to
> think and "re-think" what we know. I'm not sharing anything * new *here,
> but rather just reaffirming my appreciation for the dialogue and our shared
> struggle. Glad to see Mark's contributions too, as I believe the critical
> juncture we have reached involves the intersection of cultural and the
> rapidity of technological development ("Future Shock" indeed!) that have
> far outstripped our biological or animalistic evolution, recounted by
> numerous authors, cultural critics, and scientists alike. Just saw the
> movie "Hidden Figures" last night, reminding me for the 10,000th time that
> the tribalism of our species and our core survival strategies (the ways in
> which we manage and secure resources for ourselves and our kin, for
> example) have not changed much since the emergence of Homo sapiens. Stated
> another way, although I'm a student of culture and technology, the evidence
> does not stack up well for our long-term survival if we are hoping for
> cultural/technological overrides to systems that have evolved over "big
> history" and billions of years. "Nothing gold can stay." But we live here
> and now. Why not keep trying? 😊
>
> Best to one and all, -Joe
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Associate Academic Dean
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CAwfF7pleGvLwTJo_6r2zBltaGEMXTu_0sHf1g987o0&s=5YVouGhNxwN90nB_yqFHHghcPiHmznH3VPndV5VcT_c&e=>
>
> London, Ontario, Canada
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CAwfF7pleGvLwTJo_6r2zBltaGEMXTu_0sHf1g987o0&s=5YVouGhNxwN90nB_yqFHHghcPiHmznH3VPndV5VcT_c&e=>
>  N6A 2M3
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CAwfF7pleGvLwTJo_6r2zBltaGEMXTu_0sHf1g987o0&s=5YVouGhNxwN90nB_yqFHHghcPiHmznH3VPndV5VcT_c&e=>
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>
> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]
> edu> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 6, 2018 6:10 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>
> Yes, I am a Hungarian Jew as you surmised. And an interesting group, given
> the creativity in both science and the arts. I haven't read Leo Perutz, but
> will have to do so, so thanks for the heads-up. And I was vaguely
> acquainted with the theory that we are Khazars, having recently read Robert
> Byron's The Road to Oxiana, about the Middle-East in the 1930s. My father's
> father claimed to be able to trace his family in Hungary back to the 1500s,
> so what transpired between then and the Khazars in the 8th Century is a big
> gap. No doubt someone will do the genetics so we'll solve the mystery.
> There was an interesting study from U Utah (Cochran G, Hardy J, Harpending
> H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J Biosoc Sci. 2006
> Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that given Ashkenazi Jews
> have 10 IQ pts higher than average, but also have excessive
> neurodegenerative diseases, that the myelinization that promotes
> intelligence taken to excess is pathologic.
>
> My interests in understanding the drivers of human intelligence run to my
> interest in the origins of the Holocaust, which I maintain was a result of
> ignorance and fear, so what ever we can do to inform is all to the
> better..... John
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> John:
>
> Fascinating!  As it turns out, Leo Perutz's 1933 novel "Saint Peter's
> Snow" is an important one for me -- since it apparently describes the
> invention of LSD 5-years before it was first "officially" synthesized at
> Sandoz in Basle (yes, as it turns out, I'm the "historian" of LSD.)  Ever
> have the chance to read it . . . ??
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Saint-2DPeters-2DSnow-2DLeo-2DPerutz_dp_1611458862&d
> =DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1
> IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4p
> IvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=jUCqzAP--Vu_4--9pqCh13JqvmXDTHfk0_hisiklZNw&e=
>
> As you likely know better than I, Hungarian Jews (if that's appropriate in
> your case), are a very special group.  To some extent, they might be
> described as "Khazars" (i.e. neither Sephardic or Ashkenazi &c), somehow
> related to the Khazar Empire in Central Asia -- as written about by Arthur
> Koestler in his last novel "The Thirteenth Tribe" (1976).
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Thirteenth-2DTribe-2DArthur-2DKoestler_dp_0945001428
> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA
> 4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=sJVEoiN5J576BZzOysp6BHoAOIue7v
> FZb2mtgy1FefU&e=
>
> Some other Hungarian "Khazars" who I've crossed paths with are
> Intel-founder Andy Grove (who I met, plus had many dealings with his
> company) and atom-bomb inventor Leo Szilard (who I've deeply researched).
> Quite a story, which has recently resurfaced in various disputes about
> Jewish *genetics* . . . !!
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_Khazars&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB
> 9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz
> 4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=fJxVLwSI
> maJW6ZBLP3YITakQcYy8zRSj5Hz1S7jJ2O0&e=
>
> Yes, I expect that your interests have a great deal to do with your early
> experiences (as, indeed, have all of us).  There's no doubt that "biography
> matters" a lot.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> I was born in Budapest, Hungary. My mother's family is from Prague, Cz and
> Budapest, Hungary. I am related to Max Perutz, the Nobel Laureate, and to
> Leopold Perutz, the novelist, on that side of my family. My father's family
> is from Gyngyos, Hungary. We emigrated to the US in 1948 through my
> grandparents initiative in franking their NY congressman gain entry to the
> US; we had originally had exit visas to go to Honduras. I had grandparents
> and great grandparents living in the States who had emigrated in the 1930s.
> I grew up on Long Island, New York, the product of an excellent formal
> public educational system. I say 'formal' because I spent my weekends in
> Manhattan with my Viennese grandparents who took me to museums, theater,
> opera for my entire growing up years. We spoke Hungarian exclusively at
> home; my maternal relatives spoke German, but I was not encouraged to
> learn, I assume because of the 'stigma' of the post-WWII environment. I
> attribute my insatiable and ecclectic curiosity and career in biomedical
> research to that overall experience. My son Daniel is a well-known novelist
> whose first novel, The Last Flight of Poxl West was about my maternal
> family fleeing Nazi Germany.
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> John:
>
> We have much work to do and I, for one, look forward to your participation
> in the upcoming discussions . . . !!
>
> Your Facebook post from Feb 1, 2017 says that you are an immigrant from a
> Communist country (along with assorted "political" remarks &c).  Would you
> care to tell us a bit about your early life . . . ??
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Mark, I hope that we are 'kayaking' and not just 'yaking' which I don't
>
> think we are, but I liked the pun, so there.....again I will interject
> within your last email:
>
> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>
> shit....You?
>
>
> [The Editors at a couple of conventional Evolution journals have said so
> in
> more civil language. And I just assume they're keeping their finger in the
> dyke because there's more and more of us who think that Darwin was wrong.
> As for my colleagues, they're either politely hear me out or turn a deaf
> ear. I gave my homily to a group of MDs and PhDs who do developmental
> biology a few years back and a friend was sitting in the audience, so I
> asked him what he thought of the lecture. His PC answer was that what he
> heard was some saying 'brilliant', others saying 'huh?'. But I guess I
> hang
> my hat/head on the fact that I have published more than 80 peer-reviewed
> articles, which counts for something, at least in the realm of grant
> funding and patenting. And the fact that the model is predictive for
> dogmas
> in biology gives me courage to keep on keeping on. One of my first
> research
> Fellows back in the day challenged me to come up with some physiologic
> trait that would be predicted by the cell-molecular approach, particularly
> as it pertains to the evolution of endothermy. So we came up with the
> attached hypothesis as to why we males carry our testes on the outside of
> our bodies fyi.....that's never been explained before. Not even close.
> It's
> testable and refutable....]
>
> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is what
> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work.  From what I can tell,
> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
> quite conventional).
>
> [Well actually I just use cell biology as a tool. My formal training is in
> endocrinology/reproductive endocrinology, and my career as a funded
> investigator has been as a lung biologists. Besides which, I am a PhD,
> which I think gives me license to 'philosophize'. Lovelock and Margulis
> were geochemist and biologist, so why did they have license to hypothesize
> Gaia? Because, just like why dogs lick their genitals, because they could]
>
> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life for a
> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century.  My
> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd be
> interested in how that plays with your colleagues.  Nothing in the
> universe
> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists,
> for
> instance.  Maybe biology never made that leap.
>
> [I like Schrodinger's concept of negentropy, as expressed in What is Life?
> 1944. And the Reviewers seem to be OK with it too. As for my science being
> old fashioned, you might have said the same about Gallileo riffing on
> Copernicus. In point of fact, we do cutting-edge epigenetic research in my
> lab, funded by the NIH, so no, my science is anything by old fashioned.
> I've just looked at the data from a different perspective, kinda like
> Einstein, travelling in tandem with a lightbeam. I know that the
> physicists
> think that all is probability, but Einstein said that G_d does not play
> dice with the Universe......so he must have thought that some aspects of
> physics were deterministic, like the mass of a neutron, for example.
> Besides which, if ever get more widely recognized, I maintain that we got
> the how and why of our existence backwards, and since our system of logic
> is founded on our sense of self to a large degree, perhaps that's why we
> keep going through ups and downs as a society.......I maintain that the
> closer we get to the Implicate Order, the smoother the 'ride' will be. As
> for biology never making he leap to a probabilistic perspective, that's
> been tried by many (LL Whyte, Prigogine, Polanyi, Wilson) but they make a
> systematic error in seeing life as a 'snapshot', or synchronically, when
> in
> fact evolution is diachronic (see attached). Seen across space-time life
> is
> both deterministic and probabilistic depending upon what aspect of the
> process is being examined. Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to
> biology,
> but it has to be applied at the cellular-molecular level from the origin,
> not 1:1 realtime. The example I use is that of the effect of gravity,
> which
> refers all the way back to the origin of life as unicells. When the cell
> is
> dissociated from gravity experimentally the ability to communicate with
> the
> environment is lost, i.e. the cell is comatose]
>
> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in fact,
> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field.  He is so outrageous that
> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>
> [Well and my frustration with Gregg is that in his TOK the joints between
> the levels are mechanistic, if only he would see it as I do......he sort
> of
> does in that he refers to it as metaphysics, but it's not philosophy when
> you(I) apply the cellular-molecular template.]
>
> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present -- albeit
> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>
> [Yes, largely because the psychologist credo is that you can just talk
> your
> problems away, but I maintain that that's just kicking the can down the
> proverbial road. In reality, if we were to embrace a novel way of thinking
> about the how and why of our existence, particularly our mortality, which
> I
> addressed in my last give and take, that we would be able to move forward,
> but that's a 'bridge too far' for Gregg. When I get into this head space I
> think of Heliocentrism and The Enightenment.......we've had a reboot
> before
> by displacing our 'home' from the center of the Solar System. Now I think
> we need to do the same for ourselves by displacing ourselves from the
> center of the Biosphere in order to be better stewards of ourselves, other
> organisms, and the planet]
>
> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its *determinism*,
> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions?  I sorta doubt it but look
> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>
> [I'm talking about a fundamental change in human logic.....I don't think
> that digitizing affects that...it just exacerbates the
> underlying/overarching problem IMHO. The problem with the Titanic was in
> the hull design, not the arrangement of the deck chairs]
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that).  My guess is
> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you have
> heard.  No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>
> [Dark Ages is a convention....and I don't appreciate the ad hominem stuff.
> I happen to know plenty about history, so I don't think that's my problem]
>
> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list.  I appreciate that -- in
> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
> reasonable.  However, the question whether that "context" is itself
> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>
> [To think that technology would affect human kind at the level I am going
> to is, in my opinion, ludicrous, and misses the whole point. I don't think
> that, for example, the invention of the wheel altered the trajectory of
> human consciousness, it merely affecting the rate of change]
>
> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
> would also be an interesting topic to discuss.  Georg Cantor was told in
> no
> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out,
> that
> there is no "actual infinite" in this life.  I would tend to agree.  The
> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question,
> which
> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>
> [1/0 ?]
>
> P.P.P.P.S.  No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can *ever*
> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing to
> your old-time PRINT approach to these things.  "Logical positivism" was
> the
> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
> science" clearly failed.  It won't work for social science, in particular,
> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that
> other
> approaches will be required.
>
> [So picture yourself saying that science will never explain everything in
> 14th Century Florence, and then you are told that the world is
> round......does your statement still apply? I don't think so, but I don't
> want to sound dogmatic, just open minded and forward thinking]
>
> I honestly don't think you see what it is that I am saying with regard to
> my perspective. The idea, for example that we misconstrue consciousness as
> brain/mind rather than as our sense of being aware of our being because of
> the iterative process of internalizing the external environment and making
> it useful physiologically, the aggregate of that being Consciousness. That
> alone is a game changer to my way of thinking......Perhaps it would help
> to
> cite my co-author Bill Miller, who says that the concept we are promoting
> is 'like turning your sock inside out'.
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> John:
>
>
> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>
> shit....You?
>
>
> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is
> what
> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work.  From what I can tell,
> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
> quite conventional).
>
> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life for
> a
> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century.  My
> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd be
> interested in how that plays with your colleagues.  Nothing in the
> universe
> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists,
> for
> instance.  Maybe biology never made that leap.
>
> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in fact,
> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field.  He is so outrageous
> that
> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>
> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present --
> albeit
> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>
> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its *determinism*,
> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions?  I sorta doubt it but look
> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that).  My guess
> is
> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you
> have
> heard.  No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>
> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list.  I appreciate that --
> in
> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
> reasonable.  However, the question whether that "context" is itself
> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>
> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
> would also be an interesting topic to discuss.  Georg Cantor was told in
> no
> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out,
> that
> there is no "actual infinite" in this life.  I would tend to agree.  The
> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question,
> which
> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>
> P.P.P.P.S.  No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can *ever*
> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing
> to
> your old-time PRINT approach to these things.  "Logical positivism" was
> the
> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
> science" clearly failed.  It won't work for social science, in
> particular,
> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that
> other
> approaches will be required.
>
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Mark: I will attempt to navigate through your last reply by interjecting
> in
>
> brackets....
>
> Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
> highest-level
> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>
> [I have a different take on culture, having interpolated Niche
> Construction
> into the unicell (Torday JS. The Cell as the First Niche Construction.
> Biology (Basel). 2016 Apr 28;5(2).), offering the opportunity to then
> integrate organisms within niches as ecologies, which scales all the way
> from the unicell to Gaia. Along the way, culture is a manifestation of
> exponential niche construction, or anthropomorphized
> institutions......so
> I
> would suggest that technological inventions 'facilitated' culture, all
> due
> respect. As for why physiologic stress is caused, perpetual
> environmental
> change is a Given; life must change accordingly or become extinct. In
> actuality, the ability of life to sense change in the environment,
> external
> and internal alike using homeostasis as its 'feelers' is how the cell(s)
> know that change has occurred, and because they are servoed to the
> environment, equipped with the capacity to change as I had described
> earlier, the organism is constantly in flux, but trying to maintain the
> equipoise that it generated at its origin as its 'Garden of
> Eden'.......like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast
> as
> she can to remain at rest, like a catalyst mediating a chemical reaction
> (literally), or the eternal Burning Bush, never burning up ]
>
> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one
> most
> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>
> [Len Hayflick, a preeminent cell biologist has stated that the amount of
> bioenergetics within the cell is finite (Hayflick L. Entropy explains
> aging, genetic determinism explains longevity, and undefined terminology
> explains misunderstanding both. PLoS Genet. 2007 Dec;3(12):e220). But to
> think that our lives are finite is missing the big picture point of
> epigenetics. We are actually immortalized by being the 'vehicles' for
> the
> transit of environmental information to the organism so that it can make
> the existential decision to either remain the same or change in sync
> with
> the environment. I have also considered the possibility that because our
> microbiome is 70-90% of our holobiont being, that unless we are cremated
> or
> buried in a concrete crypt, our microbiome goes back to the earth when
> we
> are buried, back into the aquifer, ingested by plants and animals and
> 'reincarnated' in others who drink and eat us. There's experimental
> evidence, for example, that when we are buried our microbiome leaves a
> 'footprint' called the necrobiome, indicating that our microbiome
> remains
> intact, so we live on through our microbiome!]
>
> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today
> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.  Indeed,
> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
> (without
> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>
> [In my reduction of biology/evolution I came to the realization that a)
> there are First Principles of Physiology- negentropy, chemiosmosis and
> homeostasis- and that the first two principles are deterministic,
> whereas
> homeostasis is probabilistic, conferring Free Will because we are free
> to
> be any of a number of states of being depending upon which one provides
> the
> least 'friction', i.e. allows for the cell to remain at equipoise. The
> atom
> is similarly in homeostatic balance, the proton and electron balancing
> one
> another. But based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the first three
> values
> for electron spin are deterministic, whereas the fourth is time-based
> and
> probabilistic. So both the animate and inanimate are both deterministic
> and
> probabilistic. I think that in both cases the probabilistic component
> accommodates Heisenberg, but in the case of life, it resolves the
> duality
> in an on-going manner as evolution.]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>
> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
> of
> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
> means anymore.  This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four causes"
> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture."  And, to do
> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>
> [All due respect, but I have suggested to Gregg that the 'joints' in his
> TOK are the mechanisms that interconnect the 'levels', so there is a
> causal
> explanation IMHO.....is this reasonable to your way of thinking....not
> trying to be a d___k about it because I have interjected a novel way of
> thinking about the nature of life that could re-establish causation,
> alleviating the angst of the probabilistic 'Cosmic Chill', supplanting
> it
> with causal "Cosmic Thrill' of knowing that we are stardust, a la
> Sagan.]
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>
> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>
> [Am I helping? or just moving the deck chairs? For me, the cell's eye
> view
> is enabling, but that's just me]
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
> &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
> technologies,
> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These "dimensions"
> require
> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval
> of
> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>
> [I would agree that civilization is a higher level than culture,
> particularly if it further facilitates the ability of Man to 'evolve' in
> the face of environmental change as the 'rule of thumb'. Of course I
> hate
> that aphorism because as you probably know, it comes from the king of
> England ruling that you could only beat your wife with a rod no thicker
> than your thumb]
>
> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the
> Bible.
> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is simply no
> way
> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
> "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to understand
> cell-cell
> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story.  I began
> my
> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to University
> of
> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in the
> "Old Testament."  I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
> than they were.  In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>
> [I personally find religion to be the mother of all 'just so stories',
> particularly since stumbling on to the realization that life originated
> as
> an ambiguity and deception is the way we cope with that ambiguity (I
> know,
> I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating IMHO] In my head, there is
> a
> process by which we move further from belief and closer to knowledge
> using
> science as the leverage. BTW I don't think we'll ever get to the
> Implicate
> because it is an asymptote, but its the journey, not the destination
> that
> counts]
>
> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
> over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already
> living
> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This is
> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age."  As
> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all of
> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture"
> from
> the one we grew up in.  Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
> why
> that happened.
>
> [I'm reminded of the joke about the drunk at the end of the bar who
> yells
> out 'All lawyers are assholes', and a guy at the other end of the bar
> yells
> back 'I resent that remark. It is an insult to us assholes]. In that
> vein,
> I understand how civilization might default back to religion as we did
> in
> the Dark Ages, but I am more in favor of recognizing our fundamental
> relationship with the physical world, and that what we call G_d is the
> Singularity, which is a secular idea that overarches Original Sin......I
> hate that precept because it leads to a fear-based worldview like that
> of
> the Church or Communism. We know scientifically that fear literally
> breeds
> fear....that stress causes elevated cortisol in the mother, which gives
> rise to depression in the offspring, which then experiences elevated
> cortisol, etc etc etc. That downward spiral kills hope and creativity,
> fostering negative thinking and fear. So I would like to think that in
> the
> post-secular world we have the option of understanding our inner
> workings
> as a continuum with the Cosmos, and that the gift of life is in our
> ability
> to circumvent the Laws of Physics in order to invent and problem
> solve......that is the true nature of Man, if only we are open to what
> we
> already know, and can exploit for the betterment of our species,
> unctiousness aside]
>
> We makin' any headway? Or am I just spinin' my wheels? I ask because I
> see
> the light at the end of the tunnel......but it's useless without others
> willing to discuss a Plan C.....Plan A being Creationism, Plan B being
> Darwinism....I don't think that in general people are considered
> alternatives to A or B, assuming that we know all we know, and that
> there's
> nothing else, which is unfortunate. I have had some preeminent people
> tell
> me that I am basically full of shit....You?
>
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> John:
>
>
> Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
> highest-level
> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>
> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one
> most
> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>
> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today
> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.
> Indeed,
> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
> (without
> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>
> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
> of
> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
> means anymore.  This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four
> causes"
> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture."  And, to do
> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>
> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
> &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
> technologies,
> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These "dimensions"
> require
> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval
> of
> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>
> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the
> Bible.
> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is simply no
> way
> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
> "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to understand
> cell-cell
> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story.  I began
> my
> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to
> University
> of
> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in
> the
> "Old Testament."  I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
> than they were.  In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>
> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
> over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already
> living
> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This
> is
> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age."  As
> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all
> of
> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture"
> from
> the one we grew up in.  Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
> why
> that happened.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Awareness-2DWhat-2DMissing-2DReason-2DPost-2Dsecular
> _dp_0745647219&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
> a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=oKSiJicoDfZ5DB
> i-buQPxCI8ws_F7TIZx7iOCi8mUe4&e=
>
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> In response, I am not very familiar with scripture, so not well versed
> in
>
> the Book of Revelation......a reflection of my poor education?
>
>
> As for  --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
> *destroying* "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its
> relationship to "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for
> instance) . . . !!
>
> If I understand your question correctly, my conceptualization of
> evolution
> is based on cell-cell communication as the basis for development and
> phylogeny mediated by soluble growth factors and their eponymous
> receptors. Such interactions are known to determine the patterns of
> growth
> and differentiation that occur during embryogenesis, culminating in
> homeostasis at the time of birth, and subsequently during the life
> cycle
> of
> the
> the organism. Death/senescence is caused by the breakdown in cell-cell
> communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is
> finite.
> Mutations occur when the organism is under physiologic stress, causing
> the
> production of Radical Oxygen Species due to shear stress to the walls
> of
> the capilllaries.....such Radical Oxygen Species are known to cause
> gene
> mutations and duplications. But it should be borne in mind that those
> genetic changes are occurring within the context and confines of the
> homeostatic regulation of the cell-cell interactions. The cells will
> remodel themselves until a new homeostatic set point is reached,
> constituting what we
> think of as evolution. So if evolution is thought of as 'progress',
> that
> is
> how it has transpired...perhaps you could find an explanation for
> communism
> based on this mechanism of evolution. As for cancer based on the same
> mechanism, if the cell-cell interactions cannot re-establish
> homeostasis,
> one of the cells will proliferate to fill form a 'new' organism in
> order
> to
> fulfill its mission of homeostasis within the organismic construct. I
> have
> attached
> paper of us on the topic fyi.
>
> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]
> >
> wrote:
>
> John:
>
>
> I was off kayaking (and eating lobster salad at Pop's restaurant)
> yesterday, so I'll take your comments one-at-a-time (the last of
> which
> was
> in a private email).
>
> #1 "Communism" has nothing to do with "cooperation."  Instead, it was
> an
> expression of the Protestant *evangelical* expectation of an
> Armageddon
> that would end human biology once-and-for-all.  Marx was a hired-gun
> by
> F.
> Engels (paid for by his father's factory), who was actually
> responsible
> for
> all this nonsense.
>
> Engels was raised in Barmen, Germany, where his youthful experiences
> were
> of itinerant preachers raising the roof with "Repent the End is Near"
> --
> whereas Marx came from Trier, where he identified with the local
> farmers.
>
> "Communism" is a fundamental *rejection* of "equipose" and instead an
> attempt to end this world with a "material" version of the 2nd
> Coming.
> How
> familiar are you with the Book of Revelation . . . ??
>
> Furthermore, what we would now call "human" didn't exist until
> roughly
> 500BC (and then only in a few places), or what Karl Jaspers called
> the
> "Axial Age."  Hunter Gatherers were the same species but not at all
> the
> same "phenotype" that is today encountered by anyone who understood
> that
> term.  This is the topic of Jaynes and Donald, which I will wait for
> Greg
> to return to elaborate.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
> pedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=k-1
> yHhOxtVZDQg50L5F8zha5fvPEThxP1XM1qLGmLwA&e=
>
> #2 As an "outlying thinker," you will need to learn about Leibniz.
> All
> in
> due time.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Leibniz-2DIntellectual-2DMaria-2DRosa-2DAntognazza_
> dp_1107627613&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
> GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=aSiHYiwqsVcVrV
> R5hyEV7NBzagdNR_GJoX2mOvp4VEQ&e=
>
> #3 Without McLuhan, there is no "up-to-date" regarding technology.
> Also
> a
> topic for future elaboration.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=
> QWaAiedWWRHK_bXLzdPPeeVtFOcVHHiFpuDwZGwgB1k&e=
>
> --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
> *destroying*
> "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its relationship to
> "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for instance) . . .
> !!
>
> Mark
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> .....Oh, and no, I have not read Leibnitz, just little snippets here
> and
>
> there.....to be honest, as long as the thinking is related to biology
>
> as
> Lego Blocks (descriptive) it is unfortunately immaterial to my way
> of
> thinking because it reflects the logical construct being used......I
> liken
>  it to the difference between Newtonian Gravity theory v
> Einsteinian,
> the
> former describing the attraction of bodies, the latter that gravity
> is
> due
> to the distortion of space-time. Like Twain said,“The difference
> between
> the *almost right* word and the *right* word is really a large
> matter.
> ’tis
>
> the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”😀
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Mark, nice to meet a true 'son of Madison'. I only knew transients
> from
>
> Michigan State and University of Chicago in my brief post-doctoral
>
> stint. I
> worked with Jack Gorski, the biochemist who discovered the estrogen
> receptor.......my work on the effect of cortisol on lung
> development
> was
> buoyed by such science for the next 20 years. Madison was an
> interesting
> transition from my MSc/PhD in Experimental Medicine, taught by the
> discoverers of cortisol, aldosterone and prolactin, and Hans Selye,
> the
> clinician-scientist who coined the term 'stress' while at McGill, a
> bastion
> of Eurocentnrism, back to the US en route to Harvard (from which I
> was
> thrown out after 15 years of hard labor), which may explain my own
> worldview academically, which is quite eclectic, but in a very
> different
> way from yours. I have spent 50+ years doing the science of the
> establishment, chasing my tail studying physiologic mechanisms and
> chasing
> my intellectual tail, always in the hope of 'linearizing' the story
> by
> latching on to a tale that would take me from the superficial and
> mundane
> to the fundamental......what else would I have expected, given
> that a
> simple molecule like cortisol could flip a switch and save life at
> its
> inception- the implementation of cortisol for prevention of the
> death
> of
> preterm infants was profoundly inspiring, to this day. But as I had
> said,
> it made no 'logical' sense that hormones would or should have
> anything
> to
> do with lungs....but now it makes all the sense in the world; I
> just
> hadda
> turn the whole process around 180 degrees, at least for my own
> 'sanity'.
>
> So to your question about the biological relevance of Communism, I
> start
> with the premise that multicellular organisms evolved through
> metabolic
> cooperativity, so 'from each according to their abilities, to each
> according to their needs' makes sense as an operational principle.
> I
> think
> that all fell apart in the transition from Hunter Gatherers to
> agriculture
> and ownership of land, acting as a driver for human avarice and
> greed
> instead of cooperativity. There is a biological underpinning to
> that
> in
> the
> transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture due to the ready
> source
> of
> food year round increasing subcutaneous fat, producing the hormone
> leptin,
> which promotes the 'arborization' of the brain, the formation of
> ever-increasing numbers of synapses. That mechanism usurped the
> gut-brain
> mechanism by which food would distend the gut, increasing leptin
> and
> ghrelin production by the gut, affecting brain development along a
> different trajectory from the steady infusion of leptin provided by
> the
> fat
> depot. There are those who say that the dominance of the CNS over
> the
> gut
> brain has been our undoing, and I think that's correct in that the
> CNS
> mechanism tends to lend itself to neuroticisms that the gut-brain
> doesn't
> due to the abstractions of the CNS vs the pragmatism of the gut, if
> you
> get
> my drift. Along these lines, there was an interesting paper
> (Cochran
> G,
> Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J
> Biosoc
> Sci. 2006 Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that
> Ashkenazi
> Jews
> have higher IQs, but an excess of neurodegenerative diseases, and
> that
> this
> is an example of balancing selection, too much of a good thing
> being
> a
> bad
> thing, myelinization of neurons increasing IQ but too much leading
> to
> pathology.
>
> But I digress. Not to 'chest beat' too much on my part, but I find
> it
> energizing in my 8th decade to think that a) maybe we got it wrong,
> and
> b)
> how can we 'fix' it, given what we're doing to ourselves and our
> planet.
> As
> I had said previously, my sense is that what I have stumbled onto
> is
> the
> realization that what we think of as evolution are all
> epiphenomena........the so-called complexity of life is actually a
> by-product of the core mission of life, to maintain and sustain its
> originating ability to remain at equipoise, like the Red Queen,
> which
> sounds counterintuitive because we are using the wrong intuition.
> BTW,
> my
> idea that Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology, but
> hasn't
> been
> integrated with it for lack of the right perspective, i.e. that the
> Cosmos
> and biology emerged from the same Singularity/Big Bang, so that's
> the
> way
> in which Pauli, Heisenberg, non-localization, coherence have to be
> viewed
> biologically......then it works, at least in my simplistic way of
> understanding those two domains. And that sits at the core of the
> problem
> in the sense that our system of logic is founded on the way in
> which
> we
> understand how and why we exist; given that, if we got it
> backwards,
> of
> course we would have inherent problems in our personal comportment
> and
> that
> of the societies that we constitute. We're still stuck with
> Descartes
> (witness Hameroff and Penrose fixated on microtubules in the brain,
> when
> there are microtubules in the viscera too!) and Michaelangelo's
> Vitruvian
> Man when we should be devising ways of reintegrating our big brains
> in
> a
> more holistically win-win way. Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's "The
> Empathic
> Civilization". In it he makes this same plea, if only.....
>
> Again, hubris and braggadocio aside, what I have offered is a
> step-wise,
> scientifically-based means of devconvoluting our own evolution in a
> way
> that is 'testable and refutable', linking physics and biology
> together
> mechanistically for the first time. That relationship is
> buildable- I
> have
> suggested merging the Elemental Periodic Table with a Periodic
> Table
> of
> Biology to form an algorithm for all of the natural
> sciences....what
> a
> dynamic search engine that would be. I just have to figure out how
> to
> mathematically express evolution....Work in Progress. But of
> course I
> am
> curious as to how all of this 'fits' with what makes the hair on
> the
> back
> of *your* neck stand up? Because CRISPER and AI aren't our
> salvation,
>
> they're just more of the same ambiguity/deception paradigm as far
> as
> I
> am
> concerned......John
>
> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <
> [log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> John:
>
>
> This is *all* very exciting -- as in skin-tingly, even more than
>
> head-shaking (and, yes, mine was going up-down, not side-to-side)
> .
> .
> .
> <g>
>
> I grew up in Madison, where both of my parents were on the UW
> faculty.
> Madison West then undergraduate 1966-70, followed by a brief stint
> at
> UofChicago Divinity School (for a rare deferment, when only
> "ministers"
> escaped the draft lottery), then back to Madison for a year in a
> PhD
> program in Molecular Biology, which was aborted by the collapse of
> NSF-funding post-Vietnam.  Then I moved to NYC in 1972 and started
> an
> early
> mini-computer software company (while playing "revolutionary" and
> studying
> Renaissance history &c) -- which was the basis of my later career
> on
> Wall
> Street &c.
>
> "Genetics" seemed to me to be barking-up-the-wrong-tree with its
> over-emphasis on DNA (and "information," trying to equate life to
> computation) -- which meant I was looking for epi-genetics before
> that
> was
> quite a thing yet.  Marshall McLuhan, as it turns out, is *all*
> about
> psycho-technological environments and our "adaptation" to them
> (although,
> for various reasons, he never elaborated a "psychology," which is
> what
> we
> are now doing at the Center, with Aristotle's help.)
>
> I suspect that what you mean by "consciousness" -- say at the
> cellular-level -- is what Aristotle meant by the "soul" (aka
> *entelechy*)
> and what Leibniz meant by "monad."  Have you had a chance to look
> at
> Leibniz in this way?
>
> Throughout, this "being-at-work-staying-itself" (as Joe Sachs
> translates
> it), is in conflict with the urge to dissolve that "individuality"
> (i.e.
> Freud's "oceanic feeling" and the various "mysticisms") by trying
> to
> "be-something-else-destroying-yourself" which, in theological
> terms,
> is
> called *gnosticism* (aka "self-deification.")  Btw, this was
> Plato's
> "World
> Soul" and it was directly in conflict with Aristotle (yes, his
> most
> famous
> student), much as Spinoza's *pantheism* was in conflict with
> Leibniz.
>
> This anti-balance, get-me-outta-here, clean-things-up urge (shown
> in
> Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds) --
> giving
> rise
> to English "Puritanism," and thus the USA-as-proto-Eden (being
> celebrated
> today, as it was in Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" lyric, "We gotta
> get
> back
> to the Garden"), as well as "Communism" (via F. Engels and his
> German
> "puritanism"), speaking of ironies -- likely also has a
> "biological"
> explanation, which I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about
> (perhaps
> linked to "mutation") . . . !!
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Eventually, we'll also have to drag the Chinese into all this
> and,
> in particular, Daoism and the Yijing -- since, in the world today,
> theirs
> is a much more dynamic (and coherent) "sphere" than the West, in
> which
> the
> *balance* we are describing is institutionalized in the Communist
> Party
> of
> China (once again, noting the irony involved) -- all of which
> developed
> under *very* different psycho-technological conditions, with a
> writing
> system (i.e. the key to human self-aware "consciousness")
> radically
> unlike
> our alphabetic one.
>
> P.P.S All of this is what some call "outlying thinking" (without a
> "home"
> since the 13th-century).  I remember one day when I was
> participating
> in a
> National Academy of Science meeting when the chairman described me
> to
> the
> group as a "very unusual scholar" (and, no, I wasn't invited
> back).
> Aristotle was Greek but he wasn't Athenian -- which meant that he
> had
> to
> leave twice, his Lyceum school was outside the city-walls and in
> 307BC
> his
> followers were banished, taking up in Rhodes and then largely
> disappearing.  Likewise, Leibniz was almost completely expunged
> after
> his
> death, then mocked by Voltaire (on behalf of Newton &al) and
> slandered
> by
> Bertrand Russell.  There is something psycho-technological about
> trying
> to
> "expel" the approach we are taking -- raising questions, as
> Spengler
> would
> put it about "Man and Technics" as well as the current drive to
> "merge"
> humanity with the robots (aka, Ray Kurzweil &al's hoped-for
> "Singularity.")
>
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Hi Lonny, interesting comment about what I assume you mean is the
> ability
>
> of individuals to 'fit' with their environment, cultural and
>
> otherwise. I
>
> think that becomes particularly relevant in the context of the
> cell
> as
> the
> first Niche Construction (see attached), or how the organism
> integrates
> with its environment as a function of its internal 'resources'
> .......or
> not. I am thinking of identical twins, for example, whom we know
> don't
> share the same epigenomes. Deconvoluting all of that would surely
> help
> us
> better understand what makes us 'tick'. John
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Lonny Meinecke <
> [log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John and Mark,
>
> I am following your discussion with interest... thank you both
> for
>
> this
>
> thread. I like the term endogenization. A curious thing about
> each
> individual carrying the environment around inside, is that the
> common
> world
> is unlikely to be the same as each private version. These often
> seem
> substitutes for the external, when that unaffectable commons
> becomes
> untenable (or inaccessible) to the creatures that must somehow
> dwell
> in
> it
> anyway.
> --Lonny
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>



-- 
C. David ("Dave") Pruett
Professor Emeritus
Department of Mathematics & Statistics
James Madison University
540-246-3087 (Home)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Author of *Reason and Wonder* (Praeger, 2012)
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reasonandwonder.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CAwfF7pleGvLwTJo_6r2zBltaGEMXTu_0sHf1g987o0&s=JM4CE9hyQYE8Knz9BUOD94sbqM_pAZpNzxI6VRrkjW4&e=  and/or https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.amazon.com_author_woksape&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=CAwfF7pleGvLwTJo_6r2zBltaGEMXTu_0sHf1g987o0&s=6YMU5Cpe_GfXUfP2U0k0hM3LhWcv3galQ7xrD_LTliQ&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