I missed this line Gregg provided:

*ToK as Map of Scientific Knowledge or ToK as Natural Philosophy or ToK as
new Language System for Science. *

Perhaps an agreement statement, defining the purpose of the consensus
building topic:

*The purpose of this topic is to build consensus arround the best way to
classify scientific knowledge, natural philosophy and our language systems
describing such.*







On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 12:55 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Brent,
>
>   I look forward to learning more about canonizer.
>
>
>
>   So, I view the ToK as a new way to conceive of natural philosophy. So,
> is a subject line something like
>
>
>
> ToK as Map of Scientific Knowledge or ToK as Natural Philosophy or ToK as
> new Language System for Science.
>
>
>
> Then some claims it makes (just brain storming quickly):
>
>
>
> Universe is unfolding wave of behavior
>
> Behavior is change in object field relationship
>
> Behavior is key construct science uses to map universe
>
> Ontologically there are different kinds of behavior patterns in nature
>
> Epistemologically, the scientific method is used to define and measure
> behavior
>
> Global time ranges from the big bang until now
>
> The past is determined, the future is probabilistic
>
> Behavior can be divided into levels of analysis (parts, wholes, groups in
> contexts)
>
> Behavior can be divided into dimensions of four complexity (Matter, Life,
> Mind, Culture)
>
> Dimensions are strongly emergent because of
> information-communication-memory systems (genetic, neuronal, linguistic)
>
> Local time span varies across levels and dimensions of behavior
>
> Natural philosophy is agnostic about mysticism and supernatural claims,
> but the latter do not mesh with the grammar of the natural philosophy
> language system
>
> Sentience emerges at Mind and is dependent on nervous systems
>
> Human Persons are unique animals because of processes of justification
>
>
>
> Is this the kind of thing/list that starts a canonizer process?
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:22 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts on
> Consciousness and Matter)
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> Great, let’s get started, then.
>
>
>
> John, Gregg, or anyone could you throw out any possible consensus building
> topic title?  The limit is 30 characters.
>
>
>
> Then we need to start with a general concise description of what we want
> to build consensus around.
>
>
>
> And remember, this is not the peer reviewed publishing model, where
> everything needs to be perfect, before you publish.  The wiki way is for
> anyone just to throw out their ideas, off the top of their head, and
> everyone constantly helps to improve things.  Any and everything can change
> at any time, as long as no current supporters object.
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 8:51 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Brent, I'm game. I do think that my approach is 'superior' because it
> is mechanistic, based on unbiased empiric data, not inductive reasoning.
> Just sayin'.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:28 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> That’s just what I needed, that schematic showing the differences. Thanks.
>
>
>
> This type of disagreement (or lack of consensus) is a perfect job for the
> Canonizer consensus building system.  We could make a consensus building
> topic, who’s purpose is to build consensus around this issue of the nature
> of the joint points.
>
>
>
> In the root level agreement camp, we could state the purpose of the topic,
> or what we are trying to build consensus around.  Then we could create two
> (or more) competing sub camps, to track, concisely and quantitatively, what
> everyone believes (and needs) from this.  May the one which can achieve the
> most consensus, prevail, and become the standard.  Yet still leave room for
> minority people, so everyone can still be aware of  who needs something
> different and why.
>
>
>
> We could create a super camp, containing the general Matter, Life, Mind,
> Culture stack, which is the most important thing we all agree on.  Then we
> could create two competing sub camps, working on the lessor important
> definition of the nature of the joint points.  Once we have a concise
> description of the differences, and what it is each camp wants, we can see
> which one the experts agree has more utility, at least for them.  And
> hopefully, once everyone understands, concisely and quantitatively, what
> everyone needs, someone can come up with a way to get everything,
> everything they need – and get us all in the same camp, mostly?
>
>
>
> I’ll split the consciousness part of the reply off on a different topic
> thread.
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:32 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Brent, I would like to clarify, if I may, in [brackets] to your last
> reply
>
>
>
> *So the difference is, in the ToK it is the increasingly complex static
> state of matter at different joint points.  Whereas for you, there is more
> utility if you think of the joint points as the ever-higher level processes
> or “mechanism” that enables one to move to each of the higher levels?*
>
>
>
> [The cellular approach to evolution is founded on The First Principles of
> Physiology- negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis. Those
> Principles are 'formulated' at the inception of the unicell in the
> transition from matter to life. All of the other levels in the ToK are
> products of those Principles, mediated by cell-cell interactions/signaling.
> So yes, you're right, but with this background of self-referential
> self-organization as the underlying set of principles.]
>
>
>
>
>
> *Is this consciousness as a continuum model, a representational model of
> conscious perception where you have #1: the physical qualities of the
> target of perception (maybe glucose), and the very different qualities that
> are #2: the final result of the perception process, our knowledge of the
> target (maybe calcium flow)?*
>
>
>
> [I'm not sure I understand your statement, so I will restate what I think
> consciousness is. I think consciousness is the aggregate of our physiology
> as integrated cell-cell interactions for homeostasis. The self-referential
> self-organization derives from the formation and interactions of the cell
> with the environment, incorporating it and forming physiologic traits
> through compartmentation; homeostasis refers all the way back to the equal
> and opposite reaction to the Big Bang, being the 'force' that maintains
> equilibrium in the Cosmos, without which there would be no matter, only
> free energy and chaos. That very same homeostatic force is what generates
> balanced chemical reactions and life alike. The bottom line for me is that
> the agents/processes that formed the Cosmos are the principles for life as
> a derivative of those agents/processes, and what we think of as
> consciousness are those principles. So I use the analogy of the Cosmos as
> the Data Operating System and life as the software that runs off of that
> DOS.The calcium flow is the means by which the software functions within
> the organism.]
>
>
>
> I have schematized the difference between the ToK and the cell-cell
> communication mechanism (see attached) to be clear. Bottom line is that the
> ToK describes the process whereas the cellular perspective provides the
> mechanism for the Joint Points. If you have further questions, comments,
> please don't hesitate.
>
>
>
> Best, John
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:26 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Oh, OK,
>
> So the difference is, in the ToK it is the increasingly complex static
> state of matter at different joint points.  Whereas for you, there is more
> utility if you think of the joint points as the ever-higher level processes
> or “mechanism” that enables one to move to each of the higher levels?
>
>
>
>
>
> Is this consciousness as a continuum model, a representational model of
> conscious perception where you have #1: the physical qualities of the
> target of perception (maybe glucose), and the very different qualities that
> are #2: the final result of the perception process, our knowledge of the
> target (maybe calcium flow)?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:18 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> You're welcome Brent, I will reply in brackets to your email as follows:
>
>
>
> Let me see if I have it:
>
> This is modeling the transaction from single cellular to multicellular,
> where consciousness exists.  This is done through the combined effects of
> niche construction and the phenotype guiding the process forward.
>
>
>
> [Yes and No. I think that consciousness exists in unicellular organisms,
> along with Arthur Reber, who wrote "First Minds". If you read Helmut
> Perlmutter's paper on the response of paramecia to glucose put in the water
> triggering a calcium flow, the same thing would happen if you put glucose
> on me tongue, the neurons in my brain also increasing calcium flow. I see
> consciousness as a continuum.]
>
>
>
> This seems quite similar to and compatible with the ToK where first there
> is Matter transitions to life (single cell), then life transitions to
> multicell / mind?
>
>
>
> [I see the ToK as compatible with my perspective, with the exception of
> the Joint Points between the different 'levels'. I think that they are
> mechanisms that generate the different levels that Gregg has formulated,
> and seeing it that way would make the 'Tree' more robust IMHO.]
>
>
>
> Help me understand how qualia fits within this model?
>
>
>
> [If you follow the reasoning about physiology evolving in a step-wise
> manner, mediated by cell-cell signaling, traits that exist at one stage of
> evolution are integrated into subsequent stages, offering the opportunity
> for a sensory mechanism at one level to be vertically integrated into
> subsequent levels, acquiring other sensory associations along the way.]
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:53 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Thanks John, that helps.
>
> Let me see if I have it:
>
> This is modeling the transaction from single cellular to multicellular,
> where consciousness exists.  This is done through the combined effects of
> niche construction and the phenotype guiding the process forward.
>
>
>
> This seems quite similar to and compatible with the ToK where first there
> is Matter transitions to life (single cell), then life transitions to
> multicell / mind?
>
>
>
> Help me understand how qualia fits within this model?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:15 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Niche construction is the process by which an organism optimizes its
> surroundings.The classic example is the earthworm, which has retained its
> aquatic kidneys on
>
> land.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 1:57 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> What I mean is that based on the Endosymbiosis Theory (margulis) that the
> cell assimilated factors in the environment and compartmentalized them like
> iron in red blood cells. That was the foundation for biology complying with
> Laws of Nature. In combination with the phenotype as agent 4 collecting
> epigenetic marks we’d the organism to its environment evolutionarily.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:16 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> I think I still don’t know much about your model of consciousness, and
> what you mean by: “the transition to consciousness is accounted for by
> the combined effects of the cell as the first Niche Construction plus the
> phenotype as agent to account for the dynamic drive for the former.”
>
>
>
> So, any further explanation you could do would help me.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 7:38 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Gregg, as I think I have said before, I see the way forward from your ToK
> through the Joint Points. So for example, my origins story regarding lipids
> in water is the transitional mechanism from matter to life; and the
> transition to consciousness is accounted for by the combined effects of the
> cell as the first Niche Construction plus the phenotype as agent to account
> for the dynamic drive for the former. If you want I can spell that out
> further, but I have to run for now. Thanks for the opportunity to explain
> my position vis a vis yours....John
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 8:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Great question, John! I think the two perspectives can be merged, but
> “how” is a big issue. My experience is that I can incorporate your view, at
> least in many ways. As you know, I have illustrated it as the Torday Line.
>
>
>
> Is your experience that you can* incorporate* mine? Take, for example,
> Justification Systems Theory (JUST). I don’t know what it means to say that
> you can mechanistically reduce this to “cell-cell” communication. I
> certainly can acknowledge that there are analogies and homologies and the
> like between cell communication and human communication. But human language
> is also a radically different thing.
>
>
>
> Let me put it this way, how does JUST impact your view of reality,
> specifically human consciousness or human knowledge? My experience has been
> that when you relate to the key features of the ToK from your perspective,
> they all dissolve away. That is, all the differentiation that I need as a
> human psychologist and psychotherapist to make sense of human persons and
> their complicated mental and cultural processes collapses into an
> undifferentiated mass. Thus, I would benefit from you explicating how these
> ideas fit in and are not just examples of “just so stories” or of
> rearranging deck chairs on the Explicate Order and the like—for if that is
> what they are, then you are not connecting the two systems—you are
> eliminating my system and replacing it with yours. If that is the reality,
> that is fine. But we need to be clear.
>
> Best,
>
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Friday, March 8, 2019 7:15 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts on Consciousness and Matter
>
>
>
> Dear Gregg and ToKers, just briefly, you have said that I have dismissed
> the 'knower' in my analysis/synthesis based on the cell-cell communication
> model of evolutionary biology. But that's not the case. I have said to you
> on several occasions that I think my mechanism is your 'joint points', but
> you reject that idea for some reason. Please explain why the two
> perspectives, yours and mine, cannot be merged in that way? Best, John
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:30 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi TOKers,
>
> I am heading out to a conference (Theoretical and Philosophical
> Psychology) where I will be meeting up with Edward to support his
> presentation on Emotional Warfare and One Divide. Thus will likely not be
> replying in the next few days. I have enjoyed the conversation and helpful
> exchange of ideas.
>
>
>
> I will offer some parting thoughts. First, this conversation shows how
> “big” the concept of consciousness is. It is arguably the central problem
> in philosophy. That is, the relationship between our subjective field and
> the external world. Even that “dichotomy” raises questions from a number of
> analytical perspectives. But, the fact is that philosophy, like all of our
> knowledge systems has become so pluralistic, it is hard to know what to
> believe at all.
>
>
>
> One of my hopes with the ToK/UTUA System is by bringing a unified
> framework together for both natural philosophy and phenomenological being,
> a crucial aspect of the bridge that has previously been missing can now be
> complete.
>
>
>
> First, let’s describe the situation we find ourselves in. I posit that our
> individual and small group first-person experience of human consciousness
> can be mapped via the Tripartite Model. That is, each of us has a
> subjective, perceptual “empirical” (as in through the senses) experiential
> self system. Open your eyes and that is what you see. Second, we each have
> a language-based narrator, that has the remarkable capacity to either be
> private (as in when we talk to ourselves) or public (as when we talk to
> others). Here is the map:
>
> Now let’s consider our group “situation” as the TOK list serve. That is,
> the TOK is the “network society” that is serving as a hub for us as we
> participate and interact with each other. And each of us can be thought of
> as nodes in the network (I am indebted to Alexander Bard here). The
> internet and our keyboards provide the informational interface for our
> interactions and transactions.
>
>
>
> What is the “structure and function” of the system as a whole? Our
> justification systems, our question and answer claims about what is and
> what is not. Or, in late Wittgensteinian terms “language games.” That is,
> each of us has a phenomenal position in the world and each of us are
> narrating our version of reality. The term language games refers to the
> “grammar” or concepts and categories we are using to make sense of the
> world. The rules of the game are our methods for determining what is
> legitimate and what is not.
>
>
>
> Now we move to John’s language game/metaphysical empirical version of
> reality. John’s justification system is that, via some unique empirical
> findings, he has transcended the traditional descriptive biological view
> and achieved a view of reality that logically flows from first principles;
> that is, the big bang, action/reaction sparking a homeostatic free energy
> flow that gives rise to the core “first” principles of physiology. For
> John, this gets us out of our narrow anthropomorphic subjective view and
> allows for a truly scientific (i.e., analytically objective, physicalist)
> view of nature.
>
>
>
> Here is how I understand my and John’s dilemma. If you look at the
> attached Tree of Knowledge System poster, check out the diagrams on the
> bottom and go to the third one. It starts with Energy on the left and goes
> through Matter, Life, Mind and Culture down to a point. On the flip side,
> there is the “self/knower,” which starts at the Cultural dimension and goes
> down. In this email, that is what I have been emphasizing. On the top,
> there is the equation, Knowledge = known x knower/knower. Meaning that
> objective scientific knowledge is a function of that which is known by
> knowers, factoring out the unique subjective knower. The diagram shows what
> I mean. That is, the “anti-knower” refers to the conceptual process by
> which we factor out our human subjective knowledge and arrive at a
> holistic, generalizable “true” picture of matter and consciousness and
> everywhere in between. The scientific method is the anti-knower.
>
>
>
> I have been arguing with John, not so much because I disagree with his
> first principle view. But I experiencing it as eliminating my theory of the
> knower in an overly strong manner (as many physicalist reductive positions
> tend to do). My plea is that to get the equation right we need to include
> our subjective knower systems. We can not just eliminate them; to do so
> would be to eliminate all that we hold dear. What we need to do is first
> factor IN the human knower, before we factor her out.
>
>
>
> Then, we can get a full view of existence that includes matter and
> reflective consciousness and everything in between.
>
>
> Gotta run.
>
>
>
> Best,
> G
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:39 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> You said: “I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness sees
> looking at a strawberry?”.  Exactly.  People with the inability to
> distinguish between red and green light, have this problem because they
> represent both of these colors of light with the same physical quality.  We
> don’t yet know if it is our redness, greenness, or something else,
> entirely.  Tetra-chromats have an extra color they represent some of the
> visible spectrum with, so they can distinguish between similar colored
> light, which us normal tri-chromats are color blind too.  I want to know
> what that color I’ve never experienced before is like.
>
>
>
> I'm looking forward to when we finally know which physics in our brain,
> have these qualities, so we can finally say effing if the ineffable things
> like "My redness is like your greenness", and "oh THAT is what that 4th
> color is like"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:03 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Brent, I am saying that because oxytocin has pleiotropic effects perhaps
> it connects the image of a strawberry to its taste on the tongue and the
> color red. And these  elements of red strawberries were acquired across
> space/time diachronically. That’s what I imagine quaila to be as free
> associations . I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness sees
> looking at a strawberry?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:52 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Brent,
>
> Just so I am clear, Is your distinction below parallel or similar to Locke’s
> distinction between primary and secondary qualities
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Primary_secondary-5Fquality-5Fdistinction&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gYtcWhJWfW_jwIkpdOIqstz4l4xPnp3Chp0vIZobamM&s=pK9xRcnEhvTDmerVyZRDnnr2XRkxDtX15ylr08Rsq9I&e=>?
>
>
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:47 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of
> Neoliberalism
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
> I have missed the point, because we are talking about completely different
> things.  Everything you are saying makes complete sense, in a completely
> qualia blind way.  For example, when you talk about linking “color and
> other physiologic functions of oxytocin” what do you mean by “color”?  It
> seems that what you mean by color, you are only talking about abstract
> names, such as the word “red”.
>
>
>
> I’m talking about something completely different.  I’m talking about
> physical qualities, not their names.  Within my model, when you say color,
> I don’t know which of the flooring two physical properties you are talking
> about:
>
>
>
> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation. These
> properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry reflecting
> red light.
>
>
>
> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final results of
> the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious knowledge
> of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as *redness*.
>
>
>
> I guess you’re not talking about either of these, you are only talking
> about the physical properties of oxytocin, and how it behaves in the
> retina?  Would you agree that it is a very real possibility, that
> experimentalists, operating in a non-qualia blind way, could falsify any
> belief that oxytocin is necessary for any computationally bound composite
> conscious experiences of redness, or any other qualia?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:26 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Brent, I think that you have missed the point of the hormone oxytocin
> functionally connecting the cell that perceives color (the cone) with the
> epithelial cells that line the retina, offering a way of physically seeing
> red in conjunction with pain.....it's a hypothesis for linking vision and
> color and other physiologic functions of oxytocin, of which there are many,
> including regulation of body heat, empathy, the relaxation of the uterus
> during birth and production of breast milk, referred to as 'let down',
> which I always thought was a funny term, be that as it may. I would
> imagine, for example, that a woman in labor might see red due to the pain
> of that experience. And just to expand on that idea of interconnections
> between physiology and physics, the attached paper shows the homologies
> (same origin) between Quantum Mechanics and The First Principles of
> Physiology. That nexus would hypothetically open up to seeing a red
> strawberry, particularly because I equated pleiotropy (the interconnections
> between physiologic traits through the distribution of the same gene in
> different tissues and organs) with non-localization, the physics that
> Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance'.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:48 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi John,
>
>
>
> I’m glad you at least mentioned the name, “red” of a physical quality.
> But are the physical properties of oxytocin, or the physical properties of
> anything in the retina anything like either of the physical qualities of
> these two things?
>
>
>
> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation. These
> properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry reflecting
> red light.
>
>
>
> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final results of
> the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious knowledge
> of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as *redness*.
>
>
>
> Other than the fact that we may be able to abstractly interpret some of
> these physical qualities, like we can interpret the word “red” as
> representing a redness physical quality?  You can’t know what the word red
> (or anything in the eye representing anything) means, unless you provide a
> mechanical interpretation mechanism that get’s you back to the real
> physical quality they represent.
>
>
>
> All abstract representations (including all computer knowledge) are
> abstracted away from physical qualities.  Any set of physical qualities,
> like that of a particular physical cone in a retina, can represent a 1 (or
> anything else), but only if you have an interpretation mechanism to get the
> one, from that particular set of physics.  Consciousness, on the other
> hand, represents knowledge directly on physical qualities, like redness and
> greenness.  This is more efficient, since it requires less abstracting
> hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:14 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Brent and TOKers, I am hypothesizing that consciousness is the net product
> of our physiology, which is vertically integrated from the unicellular
> state to what we think of as complex traits. In that vein, in the paper
> attached I proferred as an example the role of oxytocin in
> endothermy/homeothermy/warm-bloodedness. The pleiotropic effect of oxytocin
> on retinal cones and retinal epithelial cells would hypothetically account
> for seeing 'red' when looking at a strawberry, for example. It's the
> 'permutations and combinations' that form our physiology that cause such
> interrelationships due to our 'history', both short-term developmental and
> long-term phylogenetic. Hope that's helpful.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Tim Henriques asked:
>
>
>
> “What is your operational definition of consciousness?”
>
>
>
> John Torday replied with his definition / model of consciousness.
>
>
>
> Also, if you google for solutions to the “hard problem” of consciousness,
> you will find as many solutions as you care to take time to look into.
>
>
>
> I’m sure all these models have some utility, when it comes to
> understanding various things about our consciousness, and our place in the
> world.  But what I don’t understand is, why not a one of them include
> anything about the qualitative nature of consciousness?  None of them give
> us anything that might enable us to bridge Joseph Levine’s “Explanatory
> Gap”
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Explanatory-5Fgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=UIxALV6nC0i0REWXcxwY9XJkwi_k0lNlkxReXKG7Kc4&e=>.
> In other words, to me, they are all completely blind to physical qualities
> or qualia.  In fact, as far as I know, all of “peer reviewed” scientific
> literature, to date, is obliviously qualia blind.  Is not the qualitative
> nature of consciousness it’s most important attribute?
>
>
>
> One important thing regarding conscious knowledge is the following
> necessary truth:
>
>
>
> “If you know something, there must be something physical that is that
> knowledge.”
>
>
>
> This implies there are two sets of physical qualities we must consider
> when trying to objectively perceive physical qualities:
>
>
>
> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation. These
> properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry reflecting
> red light.
>
>
>
> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final results of
> the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious knowledge
> of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as *redness*.
>
>
>
> If we seek to find what it is in our brain which has a redness quality, we
> must associate and identify the necessary and sufficient set of physics for
> a redness experience.  For example, it is a hypothetical possibility that
> it is glutamate, reacting in synapses, that has the redness quality.  If
> experimentalists could verify this, we would know that it is glutamate that
> has a redness quality.  We would then finally know that it is glutamate we
> should interpret “red” as describing.
>
>
>
> So, given all that, and given that consciousness is composed of a boat
> load of diverse qualia or physical qualities all computationally bound
> together, and if experimentalists can verify these predictions about the
> qualitative nature of various physical things.  Would that not imply the
> following definitions?
>
>
>
> “Intentionality, free will, intersubjectivity, self-awareness, desire,
> love, spirits… indeed consciousness itself, are all computational bound
> composite qualitative knowledge.”
>
>
>
> As always, for more information, see the emerging expert consensus
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=0lbtXYwu6UYUdQeUkWWMfrHjCaUUKuXa5N1zYDhjsf8&e=>
> camp over at canonizer.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=QF6BXcCLyHuTabm0Y_tR_F1kNvcsGgmM-j5AKZ5FuaE&e=>
> being called: “Representational Qualia Theory
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=pEF0jzBSKnzm7WMm97GdK89Xq78vTnh8L2J427I7nac&e=>”.
>
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
> following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>

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

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1