Gregg,
We can talk about this more tomorrow, but personally I have no interest in
"opposing" the scientific mission to predict....
In fact I intend to predict stuff more than even explain stuff, but it's
certainly convenient to offer people elegant explanations as well.
What I received from you in the mail is exactly that: an elegant set of
mnemonics for the ontology of knowledge.
I have found that psychology is the most frustrating, messy, contentious
field of social science, so I can appreciate why you started with trying to
make it less messy.
In my core areas of training, we already have pretty good field ontologies.
Anthropology, Economics, International Relations, Sociology, and Business
know their own knowledge structures fairly well... we usually know what our
units of analysis are. Macro-social sciences are especially clear about
their units of analysis, whereas micro-social science almost always get
lost in the weeds. I have seen this clearly in comparison of microeconomics
and macroeconomics. The macro people all know what we are all more or less
trying to achieve with models. The micro people often delude themselves
they have found the mysteries of the human condition, only to be shocked to
find out other micro people have unearthed conflicting mysteries.
You seem to be implying that psychology didn't even know its units of
analysis before UTOK... seems like a strong claim to me. Maybe true. A
similar enterprise would be trying to unite economics , which is every bit
as vast as psychology is, and often better at prediction, too, but usually
gives up on "true models"
Robert.
However, as we discussed prior,
On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 9:56 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> You are absolutely right that the magistrate of science is about
> developing models that result in research programs that test predictions
> and refine the models. And, given that I was trained as a behavioral
> scientist, when I first began formulating Justification Systems
> Theory/Justification Hypothesis back in 1996, that was exactly the
> direction I was going to take. As Andrea Z’s article on culture made clear,
> it gives rise to very clear, novel predictions about how human
> consciousness should be organized and the kinds of narrative-propositional
> explanations people should tend to generate.
>
>
>
> Ultimately, though, my journey would pull me out of the language game of
> science and into metapsychology, metaphysics, ontology, epistemology and an
> entirely new worldview. What UTOK is really about is solving the
> Enlightenment Gap and helping the world awaken so that we can consciously
> evolve toward wisdom. It does this by providing, for the first time ever,
> the effective way to frame natural science, psychology, and philosophy.
>
>
>
> There are lots of powerful predictions to be had inside of UTOK and I
> have developed many. For example, I have developed an entire research
> program based on the Influence Matrix alone. However, that really is not
> where I am going. Part of the reason is that I know that mainstream
> psychology is broken in part because it errantly submitted to the
> magistrate of institutional science and its methodological behavioral
> research program requirements without properly understanding ontology. The
> consequence has been a broken field attempting to submit to the gods of
> research methodology. Consequently, an important part of my journey is
> stepping outside of scientific exterior epistemology and recasting a
> descriptive metaphysics that gives an ontology that can hold both exterior
> and interior empiricism. It is all part of the path thru the 5th joint
> point that I am on.
>
>
>
> Looking forward to our UTOKing podcast tomorrow!
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *ryanrc111
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 7, 2021 9:27 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Materialism without Reductionism -- and why "mind" is a
> troublesome concept...
>
>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> the more detail one adds to the model, the more detail one has to add to
> keep explaining all that isnt in the model.
>
> That's science for you- it doesnt fit neat platonic ideals.
>
> If physics can't produce a consistent and clear "general theory", there's
> no chance in hell we can do that with social science.
>
> Any attempt to do so will create great information loss from the "real
> truth".
>
> so we have to be comfortable with some abstraction, full well knowing
> these are abstractions for convenience.
>
>
>
> Mind 1, 2, 3, are all abstractions and not accurate per se, but at some
> level of significance we gotta say "ok, but it's useful anyway".
>
>
>
> The GAS model of theories, as proposed by Karl Weick:
> General
>
> Accurate
>
> Simple
>
>
>
> Any science theory only gets to pick two of these three qualities, or else
> ends up in murky territory.
>
> Your theory is driving on General and Accurate (as does mine).
>
> This is the HARDEST combination to publish and the hardest combination to
> sell...
>
> Such theories become whole fields rather than simple tools, such as the
> "general" theory of physics which is really a huge corpus of knowledge.
>
> Sort of like how psychoanalysis is a whole messy field started by Freud,
> rather than a single "theory" per se.
>
> There is a solution to the "Weick GAS problem", which you have intuited:
> start your theory with General and Simple but inaccurate.
>
> Then, add in additionally rich layers of analysis that get more accurate.
>
> However, what inevitably happens is that there is some information loss in
> the G/S version of the theory.
>
> That's fine but it must be explained clearly to the reader that you made
> simplifications to be tractable.
>
> Then, your model has to allow for messy details that contradict the
> abstractions in part, but dont fully OVERTURN them.
>
> For example, in my World Systems Theory 3.0, I acknowledge that exceptions
> exist to EVERY generalization i make, but they dont OVERTURN the
> generalizations.
>
>
> UTOK to me is at a very similar level of abstraction as my theory.
>
> the most important value metric for a descriptive theory is how fruitful
> it is for producing new predictions.
>
> I can say confidently that my abstractions are designed to PREDICT future
> events, rather than to catalogue past events thoroughly.
>
> For example, I many not accurately be recalling the entire history of the
> eastern and western traditions, but the accuracy of my theory is
> surprisingly good nonetheless for predicting the timing of major
> booms/busts and paradigm shifts in world history.
>
>
>
> My main tough question to as Gregg:
>
> what predictions can we make with your model that improve on the past
> models of others?
> Answering that question will be key to promoting use of UTOK as a tool.
> Thanks
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 7:47 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> This is an interesting conversation to see on this list.
>
>
>
> These are, of course, exactly the hard philosophical problems that UTOK is
> structured to solve.
>
>
>
> Just to quickly summarize…the entire structure of thought stemming from
> the Enlightenment is confused on the matter versus mind and science versus
> social knowledge issue. This is the Enlightenment Gap. The reason is that
> there was no big picture consilient system of understanding that afforded
> clarity regarding these variables. I argue that by far the best place to
> start to get an optimal grip on exactly what the problems are we are
> dealing with is with the problem of psychology. And, with UTOK, now that
> there is a new solution to the problem that is obvious, we can rework all
> the old shit to achieve a coherent naturalistic ontology that resolves both
> the problem of psychology and the Enlightenment Gap. (Attached is the book
> summary of which I am 85% done).
>
>
>
> With regards to emergence, there are two fundamentally different kinds.
> There are the quantitative kinds, which involve both part to whole and
> scale-aggregate. These are quantitative because they are “within” specific
> planes of existence. Then there are the four qualitative dimensional
> emergences of Matter, Life, Mind and Culture as mapped by the ToK System.
> Life, Mind, and Culture emerge as qualitatively different complex adaptive
> landscapes as a function of novel information processing and communication
> systems.
>
>
>
> With Life, we get the emergence of agent arena relationships, and the jump
> into needing Aristotle’s formal and final causation *TO DESCRIBE* the
> behavior patterns of organisms (as opposed to point to novel substances
> that explain cause-effect relations like elan vital).
>
>
>
> With Mind, we get the emergence of the sensory-motor loop and the
> colloquial concept of behavior. Unfortunately, behavior horribly framed. It
> is a particular kind of behavior, the behavior of the animal as a whole
> mediated by the nervous system and complex active body that produces a
> functional effect on the animal-environment relationships. It is the
> pattern that every four-year-old uses to differentiate the bee flying
> around the flower from the behavior of the flower. The HUGE ERROR has been
> that we need an adjectival description of the property of this kind of
> behavior. UTOK shows why MENTAL is the right adjective. MENTAL BEHAVIOR is
> the proper ontological referent for ethology and basic comparative
> psychology.
>
>
>
> This gives us the first domain of the mental, which is Mind1. This is the
> neurocognitive (Mind1a) and overt activity (Mind1b) domains.
>
>
>
> Then we get the emergence of sentience. The ontological engineering
> problem of how the neurocognitive field of Mind1 turns into an
> epistemological portal that affords the subjective experience of being is
> not well understood in its specific mechanisms. However, Behavioral
> Investment Theory as the Life to Mind Joint Point when combined with
> Friston’s predictive processing, John’s recursive relevance realization,
> and the integrated information and global neuronal workspace theories do
> provide a clear overall framework that boxes in the problem. Together,
> these frames strongly suggest a two step process in Mind2. First, there are
> flashes of qualia in the form of sensor-valence qualia or pleasure and pain
> that afford an experiential mapping to operant behavior patterns. Then
> there is an extended inner minds eye that includes adjectival and adverbial
> aspects and gives rise to a model of the self over time across
> contexts…this is the experiential self.
>
>
>
> We then shift to the hominid line. Tomasello’s work shows how our hominid
> ancestors were especially adapt at creating an intersubjective field. A
> “we” space of shared attention and intention. The Influence Matrix maps
> this and it is in deep accord with the work in personality and clinical
> science.
>
>
>
> Then we get symbolic processing and then symbolic syntactical
> propositional networks. This then creates the problem of justification,
> which in turn kick starts the evolution of the human ego and the
> Culture-Person plane of existence. Then we see the evolution of Culture,
> first as oral indigenous. Then technology grows to create
> cities/civilizations, and we see the premodern into modern into postmodern
> phases.
>
>
>
> In regards to consciousness, we have to get our definitions clear. First,
> there is a very generalizable “functional awareness and responsivity”
> definition. This goes all the way down into paramecium and other
> single-celled organisms. Although they clearly demonstrate functional
> awareness and responsivity, there is no good reason to presume they have
> subjective experience of beingness. That is Mind2. Then we have
> self-conscious reflective awareness and explicit referential capacities,
> like I am conscious I am writing this email justifying UTOK. That is Mind3.
>
>
>
> We ALSO need to be clear that science is a particular kind of
> justification system. It has become our dominant epistemological system for
> good reason. However, it is systematically blind to the idiographic
> subjective experience of being. That is the nature of the exterior
> empirical scientific language game.
>
>
>
> This is why we have the iQuad Coin and the Tree of Knowledge. It affords
> us clarity on the proper relationship between
> subjective/idiographic/individual phenomenology and objective descriptions
> of behavior from a generalizable scientific vantage point.
>
>
>
> Maybe I am missing something, but I don’t see any thing in the history of
> philosophy or scientific thought that comes even close to the clarity that
> UTOK brings on these issues. That said, I am happy to be educated to the
> contrary if folks think there are clearer ways forward on this issue of the
> proper relationship of matter and mind.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8zgbi5oJCli4FqniKsI1mv90tO7CCTsB2KTMWTMfDjU&s=4NJiNYRitvg7nu0ryMHGrE9LFDIqf0soRReipGv2Yps&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lWukv_AvUoDtRYotqGOUyvTtZCUI2nWTQa3uHvRh15s&s=BXCqWSJWxKiJzLKopq68C3i-xudNA-K89KkloRy0yY4&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *ryanrc111
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:05 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Materialism without Reductionism -- and why "mind" is a
> troublesome concept...
>
>
>
> *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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> Let me add that this isn't novel ground. you're saying :" I think mind
> stuff is mysterious , it's just bad terminology that makes it mysterious. "
>
>
>
> This was the entire history of artificial intelligence: explaining elusive
> conscious decision making by simulating it with lots of other stuff.
>
>
>
> Herbert Simon, the most prolific social scientist of the 20th century,
> began where you are. That's exactly where his work started Then he went on
> for 60 more years of work and did 1000 papers ... and before death admitted
> he wasn't much closer to solving anything truly philospicslly difficult.
>
>
>
> Herbert Simon was the expert of explaining complex problems with simpler
> rules.
>
> He was one of the inventors of complexity mathematics ...
>
> And he also was the 1st person to teach an artificially intelligent
> program to play chess with learning algorithms rather than just rig some
> sort of dumb program to imitate chess play with reactive algorithms.
>
>
>
> Simon was convinced that most of what humans do can be automated. Whereas
> John searle was skeptical of strong a.i., Simon was skeptical of strong
> human consciousness. His simple answer to the consciousness problem was
> that consciousness itself was an illusion and that most of what we think we
> we can do in our brains we actually can't do. For example he doesn't think
> that we actually make that many decisions with our consciousness. He did
> studies show that most of our behavior with subconscious and rather simple.
>
>
>
> On the other hand he was rather impressed with how difficult it was to
> simulate human behavior. It was far more fascinated with the human
> unconscious than the human consciousness.
>
>
>
> I tend to agree the unconscious is far more compelling and mysterious to
> us. And it does far more of our thinking than our conscious brain does.
> Over 90% of our decisions are driven by unconscious unconscious processes.
> Really the conscious part of our brain is the easiest to simulate because
> it tries to follow the simple rules of reasoning. It's our intuition that
> fascinated Herbert Simon. He found that it took about 10000 hours for the
> average expert to become an expert of a specialized human field. He also
> found that experts rarely could explain to you how they made decisions.
> When they could explain it to you it was always very simple.
>
>
>
> In other words, wuse people can't explain wisdom because it's not coming
> from their consciousness.
>
>
>
> This unconscious thought is non reductive. Chess study has shown that
> machines can only beat humans using pure brute force and calculating
> hundreds of trillions of times per move, and being truly encyclopedic and
> trying literally every outcome possible before picking a best path.
>
> Humans somehow avoid having to try every possibility.
>
>
>
> Mind is the qualitative difference between simulating mental experience
> with outside technology humans crested (computers) and actually doing it
> with the exact physical hardware of the human mind itself. Obviously you
> don't need to believe in some spooky magic. The definition of mind simply
> requires it to be something you can't describe without loss of
> information.
>
>
>
> You may want to look at mathematics. Indeed the most important issue here
> is loss of information. Mathematically speaking a complex system that is
> modeled as a complicated system suffering suffers from loss of information.
> So you may be able to simulate a complex system with a complicated system
> but you'll never actually be the thing itself and there will always be some
> ambiguity or uncertainty due to loss of information and those things create
> real qualitative problems.
>
>
>
> Similarly speaking humanity has erected a staggeringly complicated global
> unfrastructure to support Our economy and routines of life.... However
> there is some loss of information between how we describe the modern world
> is modern world and the actual complexity of the modern world. The size of
> that information loss is enough that our society Is a tower of Babel...
> Even with very small differences in and our perceptions of of the human
> condition we come up with radical different conclusions on an individual
> basis about how to live our lives and how to describe reality. This is
> partially because in a complex system 2 different complicated hated
> reductions of that same system are going to be wildly different. So my
> verbal description of society is going to be very different than yours even
> though we live in the same society. Mind is very much an irreducibly
> different qualitative filter.... In fact you might say that mental
> processes kind of suck because they're not very accurate and reproducible.
> But the one thing we can't do is throw away the concept of mind. Any
> simulation of the human mind is gonna be too Too rational but yet not into
> it of enough to count as mind. Indeed some philosophers would prefer to
> replace the human mind with a computer because the computer is more elegant
> and consistent.
>
>
>
> I have a feeling that you're trying to do the same thing. That your theory
> of mind is gonna create a more elegant sort of artificial intelligence
> rather than describe the mind as it actually works. Herbert Simon conceited
> near the end of his life that his entire career was on the path of creating
> simulations thst were more elegant than human minds , partially because he
> didn't LIKE the mysteries of the mind and it disturbed him that ubconscous
> minds couldn't be tamed controlled and replaced with fully conscious
> knowledge and materialistic truths. So he created his own very good models
> of the conscious mind rather than go down the rabbit hole of modeling our
> really persistently hard unconscious.
>
>
>
> Michael, you've got a lot of reading to do about the history of a.i. and
> about the philosophy of science....
>
> Clearly you've got some sort of significant significant background in
> these topics but I'm cautioning you that there's a lot that's been done
> that you seem to be unfamiliar with....its a huge topic.
>
>
>
> Thanks..
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2021, 5:48 AM ryanrc111 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> hi,
> Bruce is correct - the hard problem is stubbornly resistant to external
> explanation.
>
> For example, qualia. The color we see that we call red. We can explain it
> very well externally- the frequency of it, the way the eye processes red,
> etc. all very well known.
> But the theory of the qualitative experience of red is persistently
> difficult.
>
> I dont think its "unsolvable" because synesthesia is the primary approach.
> there is famous scene in the movie, Mask, where te main character is trying
> to teach the blind person about colors by qualitative analogies, such as by
> showing how temperatures "Feel" like colors. However, like most things, the
> solution itself will never "Explain" red as qualia as well as just
> experiencing red. The explanation must necessarily be clumsier, more
> complicated, and less petic than the direct experience.
>
> Thus, is seems that qualia are real but irreducible, and only analogously
> explainable with indirect methods.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 11:22 PM Bruce Alderman <[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, Michael, I am familiar with the H2O metaphor for the emergence of
> 'mind' or the psychological, but in my view it still is reductionistic --
> and / or it doesn't do the work it is supposed to do. All examples of
> emergence we have are of the same kind: new organizations of matter, with
> new emergent behaviors. But in my understanding, the 'hard problem' is
> deemed a hard problem, not because agent-like behaviors can emerge in
> complex systems -- that's all still third-person, objective description and
> focus; still a behavior-orientation. The hard problem is a hard problem
> because there seems to be no objective explanation of how or why any of
> that would lead to first-person, qualitative feeling or experience. There
> is a leap being made, where we assert that 'subjective feeling / experience
> is here,' but all we have accounted for is the emergence of new complex
> forms of the behavior of material forms. Not the irruption of 1p
> experience into a world utterly devoid of such until then.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:23 PM Michael Mascolo <[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 All:
>
> In a recent post, I expressed agreement with the an article that asserted
> that that “the mind does not exist” – at least to the extent that “mind”
> and “mental” are defined in contrast with “physical” and “material”. The
> mental/physical dichotomy is a nasty one, as it suggests that “mind” is
> something that is non-corporeal. Robert Ryan — in a post that I am deeply
> grateful for — suggested that the ideas that I had advanced are
> reductionistic. Robert inspired me to try to be clearer in my thoughts
> about why “mind” and “mental” are unhelpful concepts, and how it is
> possible to be both a materialist and to be non-reductionist. I believe
> that it is possible to have a non-reductionist materialist conception of
> consciousness and experience. And I think that this position aligns quite
> closely indeed with Gregg’s system.
>
> I want to assert a concept that I have called *embodied emergence *(Mascolo
> & Kallio, 2019) — the idea that psychological processes and states
> (consciousness, experience) *are* complexly-organized biological
> processes, albeit ones with novel emergent properties. (Please – stay with
> me – there is something new here as I hope will become clear below.) Novel
> psychological properties – e.g., awareness meaning, experience, qualia –
> are emergent from biological processes in the sense that they are *not
> found* in their base biological elements. However, these novel and
> emergent psychological processes do not contain (nor do they have to)
> properties that *override* or *conflict with* the properties of their
> base elements.
>
> To make this argument, I want to show that qualitative transformations
> routinely occur in everyday physical systems without creating structures
> that override or conflict with the properties of their base elements. This
> can be illustrated with the common example of how we get *liquid* – water
> – from the combination of two *gasses* – hydrogen and oxygen. When we
> combine hydrogen and oxygen – two gasses – we don’t get more gas – we get a
> liquid – something with qualitatively different properties. How is this
> possible?
>
> This is not a mysterious process. This well-understood process is
> described in the graphic below. The short story: A water molecule, of
> course, is formed with two molecules of hydrogen combine with one molecule
> of oxygen. When this happens, individual water molecules connect to each
> other through the formation of a *hydrogen bond* between the slightly
> negatively-charged oxygen molecule of one water molecule and the slightly
> positively-charged hydrogen molecule of another This bond, however, is very
> weak. As a result, movement breaks the bond quickly, allowing molecules to
> flow over each other – thus producing liquid.
>
> The novel way of understanding this process is to be found in the concept
> of *EQUIVALENCE *(which, as I understand in mathematics, is different
> from *equality*). Liquidity is an emergent property of H20 molecules
> aggregated together. When we combine material gas of H and the material
> gas of O, we get the material liquid of H20. When we say that liquid
> emerges from a combination of H2 and O, we do not say that the
> combination produces H20 *and then also* the liquid we call water. H20
> is the EQUIVALENT of the liquid we call water. The properties of water are
> fully explainable by the novel structure that arises from the relations
> between H2 and O. We don’t need to *add something* in addition to the
> novel structure of H20 to explain its properties. We simply have a novel
> structure with emergent properties. The properties that emerge from the
> coordination of base elements are not to be found in those base elements.
> In this way, the novel properties cannot be reduced to their base elements.
>
> I want to say that the *same basic equivalence relation* occurs between
> base biological processes and emergent psychological processes. We have
> biological structures and processes – cells, neurons, synapses, etc.
> Psychological states and processes emerge from the complex organization of
> biological structures and processes (in ways that we do not understand).
> Now, here is the important philosophical point: When this happens, the
> higher-order *biological organization* has novel psychological properties
> – e.g., awareness, qualia, etc. – that are not found in the base elements
> themselves (e.g., individual cells).
>
> What I want to say is that the relation between (a) base biological
> processes and (b) biological processes with emergent psychological
> properties is akin to the relation between (a’) the base physical elements
> of H and O (b’) and the physical water molecule -- H20 – with the
> emergent property of liquidity. That is:
>
> The liquid we call “water” is the EQUIVALENT of H20. There is not H20
> and THEN ALSO something else – some emergent liquid we call “water”.
> Liquidity is the emergent property of H20 – a higher-order structture We
> don’t have H20 plus something else called “water” or “liquid”.
>
> States we call consciousness, awareness or qualia are the EQUIVALENT of
> complexly organized biological processes. There are not the
> complexly-organized biological structures and THEN ALSO some novel “mental”
> or “non-biological” something called “consciousness”. We don’t have
> biological processes PLUS something else called “mind” or the “mental”.
> Psychological processes ARE complex biological processes with emergent
> properties (awareness).
>
> But wait, you might say: The psychological person is an agent – the person
> has something akin to “free will” – the capacity to control his or her own
> behavior. Physical systems don’t do this. How do we get something like
> conscious agency from a physical system? To explain psychological
> processes in a material system, don’t we have to explain how we are capable
> of conscious control? Don’t our powers of conscious control mean that
> somehow “minds” emerge that control “physical” or “biological” bodies?
>
> The answer is “no” – we do not have to postulate a “mental” entity to
> control behavior – because the capacity for hierarchical regulation is
> already built into the structure and processes of biological systems.
>
> I believe that we tend to believe that “mind” is something that is
> separate from “body” not not because we can’t imagine how awareness can
> emerge from biological processes, but instead because we cannot imagine how
> human *agency* – the capacity to consciously control behavior --
> emerges from a physical or biological system. We attribute a capacity for
> conscious control (sometimes called “free will”) to “mind”. How else can
> “we” be in control?
>
> But the point is this: We don’t need complex “mental” processes to explain
> the capacity for agency. Agency – or at least *hierarchical regulation *is
> a basic property of biological systems. Even single celled organisms are
> self-regulating systems. The complexity of self-regulation increases as we
> move up phylogenetic levels of complexity. At some point, the capacity to
> represent one’s environs (and indeed, one’s own processes) comes to
> function as part of the biological self-regulating system itself. If this
> is true, then we do not need to invoke mysterious conceptions of “I” or
> attribute mysterious properties of agency to consciousness to explain human
> behavior. Consciousness and other psychological processes serve functions
> other than agency in the human system. Consciousness and other
> psychological processes transform the already existing capacities for
> agency and hierarchical control that already exist in biological systems.
> Consciousness likely serves the function of coordinating or integrating
> information from endogenous and exogenous sources so that the organism can
> respond to increasingly complex systems of adaptive challenges.
>
> And so, the assertion that psychological processes ARE complexly-organized
> biological processes is not a reductionistic statement (although it can be,
> in some formulations). Glucose metabolism is a biological process but not
> a psychological process (although it can arguably be *influenced* by
> psychological processes). Consciousness is both a biological *and* a
> psychological process; it is a biological process with emergent properties
> that function in the service of the already adaptive self-organizing
> organismic system as a whole.
>
> All My Best,
>
>
>
> *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.*
>
> Academic Director, Compass Program
> Professor, Department of Psychology
> Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
> 978.837.3503 (office)
> 978.979.8745 (cell)
>
> Bridging Political Divides Website: Creating Common Ground
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=dnaikad71T93VCsHiaWfPRCcRhnRziPJtxl4YvZAMxo&e=>
> Blog: Values Matter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=ig-BUTBtjh39H7resrXu6Tu-qsaO7_rLhP7-Bl3vMZQ&e=>
> Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=FzppyMwN986Lq13axaveLOYQ2M6IBG96yT0skmPQ_M0&e=>
> Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=gcLC-6dvIK_0kUcEAhcLfpV6J3kqE1aJGeWoOxj74SA&e=>
> Academia Home Page
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=FJ8UplzkVL7xXFlWe_3bGVMwGcFGNSLXltxzbm1PRRE&e=>
> Constructivist Meetup Series
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=3dJgNYXjbaZ5CTnG-CjJJEm3ToN-Cf-23W6W-4IZWXQ&e=>
>
> Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth Burke
> If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well. -- Donald Hebb
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 4:18 PM, ryanrc111 <[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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Dr. Mascolo,
>
> That is a reductionist reasoning that i cannot agree with.
>
> When systems are qualitatively different, they deserve qualitative labels
> that are different.
> "everything is just ____________" never has worked in the history of
> science, and I don't think it will start working now.
> Biological systems are not merely just physical. Social systems are not
> merely just biological.
> They do have different features, different epistemic concerns, and indeed
> differing levels of action.
> The universe is digital -quantum particles do not continuously effect
> large scale systems.
>
> There are clear breaks at different scales, where hardly any activity on
> scale 1 affects systems on scale 2.
> the math of differential equations and complexity supports a digital world
> of level-based actions and level-based systems.
>
> You might be interested to read the work of Sandra Mitchell , a top
> philosopher of science, whom I took coursework from at U Pittsburgh. "
> IN fact, Sandra is the department chair of the #1 rated philosophy of
> science dept. in the world, and I learned from her there!
> She has presented full theories about the qualitative difference between
> the "sciences". and they are close to Henriques.
>
> Sandra Mitchell - Wikipedia
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Sandra-5FMitchell&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a4GpWt5qlsEqQs-EqHtfR3r3f3Htlu2QNX7L0XB9WSA&s=S4VqQYAPqYN8zdUcJWtT-iY3bYuy__DjE1-CRUeealQ&e=>
>
> There is no possibility of reducing social to biological , and so forth.
> Just because there are causal linkages through the material world, does
> not mean these systems are qualitatively identical in character.
> Emergence is very well established, but I do realize there are people who
> hate it as a concept.
> However, Its far easier to defend the qualitative thesis because it
> doesn't require a magic bullet theory.
> I have yet see a magic bullet theory that accurately reduces one "science"
> to another. They have all failed.
> thus, knowledge still stands as qualitatively different for different
> systems.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert Conan Ryan
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:03 PM Michael Mascolo <[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.
> ------------------------------
>
> Greetings All:
>
>
>
> Thanks for pointing us to this article Gregg.
>
>
>
> I must admit, I agree deeply with Gough’s thesis in this paper. I think
> that terms like “mind” and “mental” should be discarded — except
> metaphorical terms to use in everyday discourse.
>
>
>
> Like any term, the meanings of “mind” and “mental” gain their meaning
> dialectical through a contrast to what they are *not*. Different
> meanings of a term can be illuminated by understanding the different ways
> in which they can be contrasted with what they are not.
>
>
>
> A central meaning of the terms “mind” and “mental” arise from their
> contrast with terms like “physical”, “bodily” and “corporeal”. This
> contrast identifies “mind” and “mental” in contradistinction to that which
> is material. It is this meaning that is problematic. The moment we
> suggest that “mind” and “mentality” are in some way “not physical”, we
> become deeply entrenched in the intractable mind-body problem: How can
> something non-physical “cause” changes in something “physical”, and so
> forth. This problem is intractable.
>
>
>
> In my view, terms like consciousness, experience, meaning, representation,
> awareness all refer to psychological processes. The difference is that
> these terms do not carry any necessary connotations of non-corporality.
> This is why, in my view, it is preferable to use these terms rather than
> “mind” or “mental”.
>
>
>
> From this point of view, psychological processes ARE physical and material
> processes — biological processes that function at a higher (yes higher)
> level or organization. There is no mind/body problem because what people
> call mind — consciousness, experience, agency — is not non-physical. Thus,
> it makes sense to ask, How does consciousness emerge in a bio-physical
> system — where consciousness is NOT assumed to be non-physical. In
> contrast, the question, How does “the mind” emerge from bio-physical
> systems suggests that there is something called “mind” that is
> “nonphysical”.
>
>
>
> My Best,
>
>
>
> M.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.*
>
> Academic Director, Compass Program
> Professor, Department of Psychology
> Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
> 978.837.3503 (office)
> 978.979.8745 (cell)
>
> Bridging Political Divides Website: Creating Common Ground
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=wbQHy-km9ZamhneRh-j419humCnbwn3N8TNk9Sf1W0s&e=>
> Blog: Values Matter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=Rxk4SxQTODZW19gdIp9UwwsXxrwYmXBnNLVOA_MsFlQ&e=>
> Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=TZ6zu3gYBpGnc-qth35P0K2ja09V8ek0yZeb7b9RJX4&e=>
> Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=RL_7xz7ooeAUoUwKBhSOce0-I_E53OAudK0rqrgCLxQ&e=>
> Academia Home Page
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=56YJNHQVrlG5_KhposaD-iRF6ryS8sc2fdU_9plf7lc&e=>
> Constructivist Meetup Series
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=DOR19Cpta4Old-RNx6bEYIXm4AV594j23SqBnPOLr4Y&e=>
>
> Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth Burke
> If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well. -- Donald Hebb
>
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 1:55 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi List,
>
>
>
> Although we hardly need more evidence for the Enlightenment Gap’s claim
> that there is profound confusion regarding the relationship between matter
> and mind in modern systems of understanding, here is yet another article
> that makes the point, with the assertion that we should discard the
> concepts of mental and the mind all together:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8zgbi5oJCli4FqniKsI1mv90tO7CCTsB2KTMWTMfDjU&s=UdRf2Fl3CrHeeXywLAiTUNIK9sPwK9bYTDq4Widkv4U&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=Dfn6DlF75Im2bhzy3L3-GEbx5Z5o-fxg-rve0zrNRF0&e=>
>
>
>
> Since there are several new people on the UTOK list, I will take this
> opportunity state what many here already know, which is that the central
> feature of UTOK is that it affords us a new, different and much richer
> metaphysical vocabulary for the domain of the mental. Indeed, my current
> book is on how the UTOK solves the problem of psychology by affording us
> clarity about the ontology of the mental. (summarized here
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_a-2Dnew-2Dapproach-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dscience-2Dof-2Dpsychology-2D66f2042e8c32&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=RHhx_9mTU72UuJ8sUvEHUjOQsb-X_FZj-E_bUj5mNy4&e=>
> ).
>
>
>
> Because I want practice streamlining this, here is the basic summary:
> First, via the ToK System’s divisions of complexification, it gives us the
> category capital “M” Mind, which is a tier of complex adaptive behaviors in
> nature. Specifically, it is the adaptive behaviors exhibited by complex
> animals with brains that produce a functional effect on the
> animal-environment relationship. These are the set of mental behaviors.
>
>
>
> Second, via the Map of Mind, we divide these mental behaviors first into
> the neurocognitive processes within the nervous system (Mind1a) that can be
> tracked by things like fMRIs, and the overt activities of animals that can
> be observed (Mind1b).
>
>
>
> Mind2 is used to denote the interior epistemological space that is
> subjective conscious experience that can only be accessed from the inside
> and cannot be accessed directly from the outside. This divide is called the
> epistemological gap. No camera or any other device we can consider allows
> us to directly experience the Mind2 of another. The most interesting
> possible exception to this I have seen is the Logan Twins who are conjoined
> at the head, and share some brain domains. Even here, however, they
> experience the world via their own epistemological portal and the way they
> describe sharing thoughts is akin to talking.
>
>
>
> Speaking of talking, this is the domain of Mind3. Talking flows through
> the interior and exterior without losing its form. It is a shared
> intersubjective space. Mind3a is when it is private speech, Mind3b is when
> it is translated across the barrier of the skin in some other medium.
>
>
>
> Finally, regarding UTOK’s solution to this world knot, it should also be
> noted that science is anchored into the language game of behavior and the
> exterior epistemological position. The ToK represents a behavioral systemic
> map of nature. Our subjective idiographic point of view is different. It is
> represented by the iQuad Coin.
>
>
>
> Thus, my reply to the article is to agree that it makes an important
> point, but it is laughable that (a) we can just stop using the terms and
> (b) that words like cognitive, psychiatric and psychological are fine even
> though mind and mental are hopeless. What is needed is a proper descriptive
> metaphysical system that is in accordance with natural science ontology
> that affords us clarity about the various domains of the mental and the
> ways they emerged and interface.
>
>
>
> This essay is mental in the sense that it is an example of Mind3b behavior
> that operates at the Cultural Person plane of existence, and functions to
> network propositions together to legitimize a version of is and ought.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________
>
> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
> Professor
> Department of Graduate Psychology
> 216 Johnston Hall
> MSC 7401
> James Madison University
> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>
>
> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>
> Check out the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8zgbi5oJCli4FqniKsI1mv90tO7CCTsB2KTMWTMfDjU&s=4NJiNYRitvg7nu0ryMHGrE9LFDIqf0soRReipGv2Yps&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=y1OHXcYoLS1rcGRNFEhrIOqM1t09lXA69XKC98X5Ms8&e=>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
