TOK-SOCIETY-L Archives

January 2019

TOK-SOCIETY-L@LISTSERV.JMU.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 27 Jan 2019 16:12:12 +0100
Content-Type:
multipart/related
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (74 kB) , text/html (133 kB) , image.png (32 kB)
Yes, dear John, this is very helpful.
What should be added is that when we then arrive at the perception of the
organism, this can also only work based on "memory".
It is impossible for an organism to perceive anything with any senses
unless validification occurs. And validification can only happen if
perception can slaughter tons of information in an instant, devalue that
information, thereby only keeping a preoccupation with exceptions to its
memory-driven expectations, therefore the obsession with ambivalence, which
we can then trace all way onto human "curiosity" and "sexuality" on which
we in turn build our entire conscious as well as subconscious worldviews.
All because the re-valuing or processing of information is enormously
costly in which case a "consciousness" that is also aware of itself is
energy-saving and also enables even more memory-processing.
So I am INTENSELY interested as a philosopher on a Theory of Spheroids as
it seems to be applicable on all levels of "psyche" and "organism" and
beyond. Who would have thought we may even soon have a cult that worships
transcendental lipids?
Best intentions
Alexander

Den fre 25 jan. 2019 kl 15:07 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:

> Dear Alexander et al., you had mentioned the importance of memory as
> ordering in a 'matrix'. I wanted to use that as a vehicle to further
> explain how my reduction of evolution by reverse-engineering embryologic
> development ultimately retrodicts memory. The culmination of my first
> reduction of lung evolution was discovering the common motif from the
> mammalian lung to the unicellular organism as lipids facilitating oxygen
> uptake for metabolism.....sounds esoteric, but it's foundational in
> understanding how and why vertebrates like us evolved. Next, based on the
> premise that evolution is serial pre-adaptations (Stephen J Gould called
> them 'exaptations'), the question was why the cell formed in the first
> place? The prevailing theory of origins of life is that asteroids formed of
> frozen water and lipids (from Pulsars no less) pelted the atmosphere-less
> earth forming the oceans. The lipids spontaneously formed what are called
> micelles, or spheroids delimited by semi-permeable lipid membranes. Such
> simple 'cells' were warmed by the Sun daily, causing them to liquify and
> deform. But at night they cooled and reformed themselves because lipids
> have the property of hysteresis, or 'molecular memory'. And as you so aptly
> said, memory is important in evolution because you have to remember where
> you came from to know where you're going; absent memory, the organism risks
> extinction for lack of effective 'solutions' to existential challenges;
> what better than to repurpose what has worked before, or serial
> pre-adaptations/exaptations. This way of thinking about the origin of
> memory obviously goes against the pervasive DNA hypothesis, but Jack
> Szostak, the origins of life Nobelist scientist, has shown experimentally
> that lipids can synthesize DNA, but DNA cannot synthesize lipids.
> Eventually, lipid memory was superseded by DNA, but like all epigenetically
> evolved traits, they begin as stress-induced ad hoc solutions that
> ultimately morph into constitutive household traits over time. Hope this
> was helpful. j
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:48 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes, John, this is indeed FUN!
>>
>> As a foundational indeterminist, based on the mere fact that The Big Bang
>> "happened", I'm getting more and more convinced that neither determinism
>> nor indeterminism can be applied to The Universe. The problem with
>> determinism is that it can only be based on the assumption that Time must
>> be an illusion and then you end up with Platonist absurdities like
>> Einsteins's block-universe. And the problem with indeterminism, as we know
>> it, is that it ends up as "chance interferences" when mobilist fields are
>> switched into eternalist particles (the "indeterminism" that "quantum
>> mechanics" were supposed to prove) which we if dramatic enough refer to as
>> mystical "emergences". What this boils down to is rather a conflict of
>> whether discretion or continuum is the basic building block of reality
>> (time included, which since there seems to be two time dimensions are
>> probably both). So we need brand new concepts for understanding "the
>> unfolding of The Universe along the time axis". Ever since David Bohm
>> struggled with the issue, non of D or ID makes much sense any longer. And
>> it definitely kills "predeterminism" once and for all. What happens happens
>> neither by design nor by chance.
>>
>> Other than that I'm terribly pleased to find out you're both a Hegelian
>> and a cellular biologist. And yes, here I am extremely interested in
>> exploring what actually happens on the very ground level of the sudden
>> construction of a cell (the isolation of a material within a membrane that
>> leaks in and out, meaning communicates with the outside world). The
>> automatic and logical "self-interest" this generates. Now if self-interests
>> over time can be stored one way or the other (quantum information theory
>> may help here) to create "a line of self-interests" that can then "reflect
>> on itself as a series of altering self-interest-states" then you've got "a
>> self proper". But that requires capacity for reflection (the ordering of
>> memory according to some form of matrix) and the question still remains
>> what "consciousness" may be outside of "self-consciousness"? A pure
>> subconsciousness without a self? Until then, I guess I stay with
>> "panorganicism" rather than go all the way to "panpsychism". But I love how
>> the two god twins inside the goddess womb metaphor returns here with a
>> vengeance.
>>
>> Best intentions
>> Alexander Bard
>>
>> Den tors 24 jan. 2019 kl 15:01 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Dear Alexander et al, thank you for your thoughts/reflections. I will
>>> read your work so I can catch up. But in the meantime I feel compelled to
>>> restate that my 'take' on evolution and consciousness are the result of
>>> reconsidering the meaning of my body of work over a 50 year duration,
>>> turning embryologic development as cell-cell communication around 180
>>> degrees and realizing that what I was witnessing was evolution from its
>>> origins instead of reasoning after the fact. Now, 20 years hence, I do
>>> think that we are at a watershed in human thought where the science should
>>> be driven by ideas, not instrumentation because we are at an inflection
>>> point in history and we need to get it 'right' or suffer the consequences.
>>> Having said all that, I wiill interject my replies to your email in
>>> brackets, as follows....
>>>
>>> However, when it comes to that awfully infected term "consciousness" we
>>> decided to just leave it in its ruinous state to the new age folks with
>>> their constant babble of "cosmic conciousness" and trying to make Whitehead
>>> more accessible decided to rephrase his "panpsychism" as "panorganicism" as
>>> this makes so much more sense in contemporary English.
>>>
>>> [I backed in to Consciousness as a 'prediction' of the model I had
>>> devised for cellular-molecular evolution unintentionally. As for
>>> Whitehead's use of such terms as "panpsychism" as "panorganicism", IMHO
>>> they actually fall short of what I think is the case.....based on my
>>> reduction of homeostasis as the 'equal and opposite reaction to the Big
>>> Bang', all matter is entrained by homeostasis since it is how and why
>>> matter exists. Without that counterforce of homeostasis at the beginning of
>>> the Cosmos there would only be energy without matter. So for example, if
>>> you look at a Henry Moore sculpture, he's telling you that the negative
>>> space is as important (if not more so) than the positive.....that's how I
>>> see it too, literally and figuratively]
>>>
>>> Meaning we should also talk about "quantum organics" rather than
>>> "quantum mechanics". I would be curious to see how you would relate to this
>>> new vocabulary.
>>> [I think I may have addressed 'quantum organics' in the attached paper,
>>> in which I showed the homologies between Quantum Mechanics and the First
>>> Principles of Physiology. But you may take exception, so I would like to
>>> hear your take]
>>>
>>> Because then you still have "emergence", many things we think of as
>>> recent may be incredibly dated. But with the concept of emergence they do
>>> not have to be traceable all the way back to the big bang. They can occur
>>> all of a sudden and only once out of any complexity.
>>> [All due respect, and not to be flip about it, but I think that
>>> emergence is an artifact of seeing our evolutionary arc from its ends
>>> instead of its means. Once you turn the process around and see it from its
>>> origins in the Singularity/Big Bang as the first cell, etc, etc, things
>>> 'emerge' logically. We published a book on 'Evolution, the Logic of
>>> Biology' on that premise. If you're interested I can send you a copy.]
>>>
>>> Hey, with Whitehead and Bohm you can not even have any strict "laws of
>>> nature" (a Babylonian metaphor we had better get rid of) but merely "habits
>>> if nature" that "in stable regions of The Universe over stable periods take
>>> on law-like characteristics.
>>>
>>> [In that vein, I think about the use of cell physiology to generate
>>> hypotheses about Quantum Mechanics, given that the latter gave rise to the
>>> former, if you get my drift. In other words, probing Laws of Nature
>>> experimentally rather than by induction]
>>>
>>>  Process, it's all process, no Platonist predetermined ideas anywhere.
>>>
>>> [Although I have made the case for determinism in Quantum Mechanics and
>>> Cell Physiology alike in the attached......or am I missing your point?]
>>>
>>> I welcome your replies......this is FUN.
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 5:13 PM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear John
>>>>
>>>> I'm with you all the way here on Whitehead and Bohm, as they are two
>>>> philosophers and mathematicians I have repeatedly returned to now in five
>>>> books so far with my co-author Jan Söderqvist.
>>>> It's process on process on process and we even have designed a physics
>>>> with two rather than one time dimension (time and hypertime) allowing us to
>>>> tear down Albert Einstein's Platonist block universe once and for all (it's
>>>> actually surprising that Bohm never added a hypertime to his calculations
>>>> but Lee Smolin, Roberto Mangabeira Unger and others have joined is in work
>>>> on hypertime as the ground of all reality).
>>>> However, when it comes to that awfully infected term "consciousness" we
>>>> decided to just leave it in its ruinous state to the new age folks with
>>>> their constant babble of "cosmic conciousness" and trying to make Whitehead
>>>> more accessible decided to rephrase his "panpsychism" as "panorganicism" as
>>>> this makes so much more sense in contemporary English.
>>>> Meaning we should also talk about "quantum organics" rather than
>>>> "quantum mechanics". I would be curious to see how you would relate to this
>>>> new vocabulary.
>>>> Because then you still have "emergence", many things we think of as
>>>> recent may be incredibly dated. But with the concept of emergence they do
>>>> not have to be traceable all the way back to the big bang. They can occur
>>>> all of a sudden and only once out of any complexity. Hey, with Whitehead
>>>> and Bohm you can not even have any strict "laws of nature" (a Babylonian
>>>> metaphor we had better get rid of) but merely "habits if nature" that "in
>>>> stable regions of The Universe over stable periods take on law-like
>>>> characteristics. Process, it's all process, no Platonist predetermined
>>>> ideas anywhere.
>>>>
>>>> Best intentions
>>>> Alexander Bard
>>>>
>>>> Den tors 24 jan. 2019 kl 01:15 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Brent et alia, I'll attempt to create a 'dialogue' by inserting my
>>>>> responses into your email in brackets.
>>>>>
>>>>> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way
>>>>> back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, that all helps at least get me started better understanding all
>>>>> you know.  Also “Terminal Addition” is a new, very interesting and useful
>>>>> concept.  It is fun when we find ways to interface very diverse fields.
>>>>> You know a lot of stuff I have no idea of.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [And you know a lot I don't too.....hope we can put our 'heads
>>>>> together']
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also wasn’t aware of the terms “synchronically” and
>>>>> “diachronically”, but those terms help, immensely, with a notion I’ve been
>>>>> struggling with how to describe.  The original “Inverted spectrum” argument
>>>>> was formulated by John Lock as “imagine that we wake up one morning and
>>>>> find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been
>>>>> inverted.”.  I now I can point out the diachronic attribute of this
>>>>> argument, comparing the times before and after you wake up with things
>>>>> being inverted.  But that throws all kinds of complicating issues into the
>>>>> argument, such as, does your memory of red change also….?”  So, I guess I
>>>>> can now more easily encourage people to simplify things by thinking
>>>>> synchronically, experiencing redness, together with a reference redness
>>>>> computationally bound.  Then redness changes to greenness, very different
>>>>> from the same reference that has not changed.  And there is also the absurd
>>>>> "inverted spectrum" notion that people describe the qualia changing,
>>>>> but they physics staying the same, which of course confuses everyone,
>>>>> significantly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [As I was reading about the 'inverted spectrum' I was thinking about
>>>>> how different organisms see in different ranges of the light spectrum, yet
>>>>> we all exist in the same physical space. So isn't it a matter of adapting
>>>>> in what ever way each organism does based on the nature of their
>>>>> physiology? Are you familiar with David Bohm, the physicist. In his book
>>>>> "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" he argues that what we think of as
>>>>> 'reality' is how our subjectively evolved senses represent it to us, or
>>>>> what he refers to as the Explicate Order. However, the actual reality
>>>>> exists in tandem as the Implicate Order. My sense is that as a species we
>>>>> are moving further and further away from the Explicate and closer and
>>>>> closer to the Implicate Order over human history, aided by Science as the
>>>>> way in which we 'know what we don't know'.]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I may be mistaken, but you appear to be still missing another
>>>>> important notion about the psychology of perception.  Normally, we use the
>>>>> term “red” in an ambiguous way, known as “naive realism”.  We are born
>>>>> thinking there is only one physical quality, the quality of the surface of
>>>>> the strawberry.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But perception is about two sets of physical qualities:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation,
>>>>>    the initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a strawberry
>>>>>    reflects 650 NM (red) light).
>>>>>    2. The physical properties of the final results of the perception
>>>>>    process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our brain we
>>>>>    experience as *redness*.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, when you just use the term “red” it is hard to know which of the
>>>>> above you are talking about.  So, I use “red” for #1, and *redness* for
>>>>> #2.  We only know of #1, with abstract descriptions, like the word red.  We
>>>>> have no idea if the strawberry has a real physical quality, we should be
>>>>> interpreting our abstract descriptions of the strawberry (like the word
>>>>> red), as having.  That is why in images like this, the strawberry is always
>>>>> portrayed with black and white.  Who's is the real redness?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Many people, when they first realize this, it is a profound life
>>>>> changing religious experience.  I remember having this life changing
>>>>> experience in an undergraduate class on AI.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [Perhaps what you are describing is a corollary of that Explicate to
>>>>> Implicate progression? In fact, since my laboratory does epigenetic
>>>>> research studying the inheritance of asthma from the environment, I have
>>>>> changed my way of thinking about what 'phenotype' means. I don't think it
>>>>> is the description of attributes, it is actually how epigenetic inheritance
>>>>> acts to actively obtain what are called epigenetic 'marks' from the
>>>>> environment. That is to say the way epigenetic inheritance occurs is
>>>>> through the direct acquisition of those marks from the environment, which
>>>>> then enter the organism and modify the DNA of the egg and sperm through an
>>>>> unknown mechanism by which such marks are either retained or gotten rid of
>>>>> during meiosis. The retained marks then alter the phenotype of the
>>>>> offspring in ways that optimize the subsequent interactions of the
>>>>> offspring with their environment. I can see how there could be an
>>>>> epigenetic mechanism for transitioning from seeing red to seeing redness
>>>>> via such a mechanism, for example]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This provides a powerful explanation of phantom limb pain which you
>>>>> mentioned.  The pain isn’t in your toe #1, it is in your knowledge of your
>>>>> toe, #2, which of course is in your brain.  And when you amputate your toe,
>>>>> you don’t amputate your knowledge of your toe, nor the pain, which still
>>>>> exists in your brain #2, as a composite conscious experience.  The
>>>>> pain just no longer has a referent in realty, #1.  So, the pain seems to be
>>>>> an inaccurate phantom pain.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [This should also hold for the peripheral nervous system and all those
>>>>> connections too, right?]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is like the way we have knowledge #2 of our skull, inside it’s
>>>>> referent, our real skull, #1.  We also have a knowledge of a “spirit” #2,
>>>>> represented as residing inside our knowledge of our skull, looking out of
>>>>> our knowledge of our eyes, again all composite #2 consciousness.  Our
>>>>> knowledge of our spirit #2, just doesn’t have a referent that ever existed
>>>>> in #1 reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> [But all due respect, perhaps #1 and #2 are physiologic and cosmologic
>>>>> levels, respectively, which when integrated due to their common origins in
>>>>> the Singularity generate what we think of as mind. Spinoza said that the
>>>>> mind is the brain's idea of the body. I think he was right but it was
>>>>> inductive not deductive, whereas I am offering an evidence-based way to
>>>>> think about the interrelationship between evolution, physiology and
>>>>> Cosmology as one integrated whole]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope you are finding this as constructive as I am. We seem to have
>>>>> found 'common ground'.....do you think we've hit on a way forward?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:49 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way
>>>>>> back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, that all helps at least get me started better understanding all
>>>>>> you know.  Also “Terminal Addition” is a new, very interesting and useful
>>>>>> concept.  It is fun when we find ways to interface very diverse fields.
>>>>>> You know a lot of stuff I have no idea of.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also wasn’t aware of the terms “synchronically” and
>>>>>> “diachronically”, but those terms help, immensely, with a notion I’ve been
>>>>>> struggling with how to describe.  The original “Inverted spectrum” argument
>>>>>> was formulated by John Lock as “imagine that we wake up one morning and
>>>>>> find that for some unknown reason all the colors in the world have been
>>>>>> inverted.”.  I now I can point out the diachronic attribute of this
>>>>>> argument, comparing the times before and after you wake up with things
>>>>>> being inverted.  But that throws all kinds of complicating issues into the
>>>>>> argument, such as, does your memory of red change also….?”  So, I guess I
>>>>>> can now more easily encourage people to simplify things by thinking
>>>>>> synchronically, experiencing redness, together with a reference redness
>>>>>> computationally bound.  Then redness changes to greenness, very different
>>>>>> from the same reference that has not changed.  And there is also the absurd
>>>>>> "inverted spectrum" notion that people describe the qualia changing,
>>>>>> but they physics staying the same, which of course confuses everyone,
>>>>>> significantly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I may be mistaken, but you appear to be still missing another
>>>>>> important notion about the psychology of perception.  Normally, we use the
>>>>>> term “red” in an ambiguous way, known as “naive realism”.  We are born
>>>>>> thinking there is only one physical quality, the quality of the surface of
>>>>>> the strawberry.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But perception is about two sets of physical qualities:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>    1. The physical properties that are the target of our
>>>>>>    observation, the initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a
>>>>>>    strawberry reflects 650 NM (red) light).
>>>>>>    2. The physical properties of the final results of the perception
>>>>>>    process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our brain we
>>>>>>    experience as *redness*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, when you just use the term “red” it is hard to know which of the
>>>>>> above you are talking about.  So, I use “red” for #1, and *redness*
>>>>>> for #2.  We only know of #1, with abstract descriptions, like the word
>>>>>> red.  We have no idea if the strawberry has a real physical quality, we
>>>>>> should be interpreting our abstract descriptions of the strawberry (like
>>>>>> the word red), as having.  That is why in images like this, the strawberry
>>>>>> is always portrayed with black and white.  Who's is the real redness?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [image: image.png]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many people, when they first realize this, it is a profound life
>>>>>> changing religious experience.  I remember having this life changing
>>>>>> experience in an undergraduate class on AI.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This provides a powerful explanation of phantom limb pain which you
>>>>>> mentioned.  The pain isn’t in your toe #1, it is in your knowledge of your
>>>>>> toe, #2, which of course is in your brain.  And when you amputate your toe,
>>>>>> you don’t amputate your knowledge of your toe, nor the pain, which still
>>>>>> exists in your brain #2, as a composite conscious experience.  The
>>>>>> pain just no longer has a referent in realty, #1.  So, the pain seems to be
>>>>>> an inaccurate phantom pain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is like the way we have knowledge #2 of our skull, inside it’s
>>>>>> referent, our real skull, #1.  We also have a knowledge of a “spirit” #2,
>>>>>> represented as residing inside our knowledge of our skull, looking out of
>>>>>> our knowledge of our eyes, again all composite #2 consciousness.
>>>>>> Our knowledge of our spirit #2, just doesn’t have a referent that ever
>>>>>> existed in #1 reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:35 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brent et alia, I would like to interject my replies in brackets, as
>>>>>>> if we were having a conversation, as follows:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I’m having troubles integrating what you are saying into my view of
>>>>>>> the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I am not surprised, since mine is a contrarian perspective on
>>>>>>> evolution, based on a cellular-molecular approach largely based on an
>>>>>>> embyologic developmental approach based on cell-cell communications
>>>>>>> mediated by soluble growth factors and receptors, not on reproductive
>>>>>>> success of the adults due to Descent with Modification, Natural Selection
>>>>>>> and Survival of the Fittest, all of which are metaphors that cannot be
>>>>>>> tested experimentally, nor have they been. My approach, on the other hand
>>>>>>> is totally based on hard evidence for development of structure and
>>>>>>> function, including genetic manipulations showing the causal relationships.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   Things like “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it”
>>>>>>> doesn’t seem to fit.  For me, the big problem is that people tend to think
>>>>>>> of “Consciousness” (or consciousness?) as a singular thing.  Pan-psychism,
>>>>>>> at best talks about elemental matter having “proto-psychism” or something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To me, Consciousness, free will, self-awareness, intentionality,
>>>>>>> love... (and consciousness?) are all composite things composed of lots of
>>>>>>> stuff.  To me, qualia or physical qualities are elemental things out of
>>>>>>> which all these composite things are constructed.  When we are consciously
>>>>>>> aware of a strawberry, we have knowledge represented by elemental redness
>>>>>>> and greenness physical qualities, representing the strawberry.  Physical
>>>>>>> qualities are elemental standalone things, which can be computationally
>>>>>>> bound together to become our composite knowledge of the strawberry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [It only seems like such things can be computed because they are
>>>>>>> described synchronically in the same space and time. However, it is only
>>>>>>> when you identify the underlying mechanisms involved diachronically across
>>>>>>> space and time that the true nature of Nature is revealed. And by the way,
>>>>>>> the same is true for chemistry. The genius of Mendeleev’s Periodic Table of
>>>>>>> Elements was that he  took into account the chemical reactions and products
>>>>>>> for any given element in order to position it, offering experimental data
>>>>>>> that transcend space and time. I have done the same for evolutionary
>>>>>>> biology by invoking experimental evidence for the evolution of physiologic
>>>>>>> traits]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>   The computational binding which provides “situational awareness”
>>>>>>> of what we need to do to pick the red things, while avoiding the green
>>>>>>> things is also something additional.  Would I be correct in thinking that
>>>>>>> matter which has a redness quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked
>>>>>>> into it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [Well this is a complicated issue, as we both know. I would like to
>>>>>>> start by thanking you for not just dismissing me out of hand because I am
>>>>>>> coming from outter space, literally, to understand what Consciousness
>>>>>>> actually constitutes. I honestly had no intention of grappling with such
>>>>>>> questions, but my research of 50 years duration dragged me down this
>>>>>>> ‘rabbit hole’. But in saying that I have to now get up on my soap box and
>>>>>>> state that we are at a stage in human knowledge and science when
>>>>>>> instruments can no longer provide answers to big questions like *what
>>>>>>> is evolution?, What is Consciousness?, What is Free Will?* I think
>>>>>>> we need to take the huge volumes of information we are generating and
>>>>>>> exploit them to understand such big picture issues. Particularly because
>>>>>>> Biology remains a *descriptive science*, unlike Chemistry and
>>>>>>> Physics, which have central theories and Laws. All biology has is the dogma
>>>>>>> of “DNA-RNA-Protein”. As a result, for example, there is literally no
>>>>>>> experimental evidence for evolutionary biology other than the limited
>>>>>>> examples that I and my colleagues have provided.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But back to your question about whether  matter which has a redness
>>>>>>> quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it? I would resoundingly
>>>>>>> say ‘YES”. The consensus is that life evolved by endogenizing environmental
>>>>>>> factors that historically posed an existential threat, such as heavy
>>>>>>> metals, ions, gases, bacteria. Heavy metals are a prime example because
>>>>>>> iron, which is a powerful oxidizing agent, was endogenized and made
>>>>>>> physiologically useful by incorporating it into heme protein for oxygen
>>>>>>> transport in red blood cells. There are classic examples for all of the
>>>>>>> others too, but the ‘iron is our friend’ example will suffice, I think. But
>>>>>>> of course we’re more interested in multicellular organisms like ourselves
>>>>>>> when it comes to choosing red matter over green matter. That happened about
>>>>>>> 500 million years ago when bacteria and our unicellular forebears,
>>>>>>> eukaryotes with true nuclei, evolved. This was due to competition between
>>>>>>> bacteria and eukaryotes, the bacteria having devised pseudo-mutlicellular
>>>>>>> traits like biofilms and quorum sensing. In order to compete, the
>>>>>>> eukaryotes evolved cell-cell communication mechanisms for metabolic
>>>>>>> cooperativity. Those cell-cell communications, mediated by soluble growth
>>>>>>> factors formed the mechanistic basis for embryologic development. And
>>>>>>> because I and my colleagues had generated enough mechanistic data over the
>>>>>>> last 50 years for the development of the mammalian lung, and the lungs of
>>>>>>> other vertebrates at the cellular-molecular level, it offered the
>>>>>>> opportunity to reverse-engineer the phylogenetic history of the lung from
>>>>>>> mammals and birds, back to the swim bladder of fish based on experimental
>>>>>>> evidence at each step of the way in both the forward and backward
>>>>>>> direction. At that point, the process was clearly all about how lipids have
>>>>>>> evolved to facilitate oxygen uptake by cells as the principle mechanism
>>>>>>> underlying lung evolution. That insight allowed tracing lung evolution all
>>>>>>> the way back to the unicellular state when cholesterol began being
>>>>>>> synthesized….Conrad Bloch had rationalized that since it takes 11 atoms of
>>>>>>> oxygen to make one molecule of cholesterol, that there had to have been
>>>>>>> enough oxygen in the atmosphere to do so, which would have been about 500
>>>>>>> million years ago, when vertebrate evolution began. The insertion of
>>>>>>> cholesterol in the cell membrane of primordial eukaryotes was the
>>>>>>> ‘catalyst’ for vertebrate evolution because it ‘thinned’ the cell membrane
>>>>>>> out, facilitating gas exchange, oxidative metabolism and locomotion
>>>>>>> (cytoplasmic streaming). As it happens, these are the three principle
>>>>>>> physiologic traits for vertebrate evolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that still begged the question as to what the pre-adaptation for
>>>>>>> the formation of cells was as the origin of life, serial pre-adaptations or
>>>>>>> exaptations being the underlying principle behind evolution. In my
>>>>>>> reduction, the only existing prototype for a ‘singularity’ like the
>>>>>>> primordial cell, which formed from the lipids embedded in the snowball-like
>>>>>>> asteroids that pelted the atmosphereless earth to form the oceans (accepted
>>>>>>> scenario for the origins of life based on empiric data), was the
>>>>>>> Singularity that is hypothesized to have existed prior to the Big Bang. And
>>>>>>> by the way, lipids immersed in water will spontaneously form what are
>>>>>>> called micelles, spheroids formed from semi-permeable lipid membranes. When
>>>>>>> such micelles were heated by the Sun they liquified and deformed, but at
>>>>>>> night they cooled and reformed due to hysteresis, or ‘molecular memory’
>>>>>>> unique to lipids. That memory was essential for evolution because in order
>>>>>>> to do so you have to remember where you came from in order to evolve new
>>>>>>> traits under environmental constraints.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the picture I have painted is one in which the origins of the
>>>>>>> Cosmos are the building blocks of life as one continuum. And as such,
>>>>>>> biology must comply with the Laws of Nature because they are innate to
>>>>>>> life- there are strong homologies between Quantum Mechanics and the First
>>>>>>> Principles of Physiology. So our physiology is derived from Cosmology.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So back to eating red v green strawberries, our ancestors learned
>>>>>>> the hard way that green fruit made them ill, which became an epigenetically
>>>>>>> inherited trait due to the damage of acid reflux to the esophagus and
>>>>>>> lungs. So either environmentally being told by parents not to eat green
>>>>>>> strawberries or learning the hard way, selecting the red strawberries was a
>>>>>>> survival advantage. But the ability to digest ripe vs unripe fruit is a
>>>>>>> function of gut enzymes that evolved in support of metabolic success that
>>>>>>> refers all the way back to land adaptation when numerous genes mutated and
>>>>>>> replicated, mitigating against the physiologic stress of transitioning from
>>>>>>> water to land because the Greenhouse effect due to accumulation of carbon
>>>>>>> dioxide in the atmosphere caused drying up of water, forcing boney fish
>>>>>>> onto land.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the
>>>>>>> way back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You also said: “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it,
>>>>>>> we just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like Chalmer’s ‘hard
>>>>>>> problem’…)".  I also can’t find a way to integrate statements like that
>>>>>>> into the way I see the world.  To me, Chalmers struggles defining what is
>>>>>>> and isn’t part of the hard problem.  But to me, it is only what Joseph
>>>>>>> Levine calls the “explanatory gap”.  The normal scientific methods is
>>>>>>> constructing models of various parts of reality that appear to have
>>>>>>> utility, then working to falsify them.  If you can do that, then it is part
>>>>>>> of the easy problem.  It seems we can conceive of how we might test such
>>>>>>> models as animating cosmic blueprints, but perhaps this is just more
>>>>>>> evidence that I don’t know what you mean by that.  Whatever it is, if we
>>>>>>> can conceive of ways to verify or falsify such, it is, to me, just an easy
>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Even Joseph Levine has troubles defining exactly what he means by
>>>>>>> the “explanatory gap”.  To me, it becomes clear if you provide an example.
>>>>>>> If you could make a statement like: “my redness is like your greenness”
>>>>>>> this would be an example of bridging the explanatory gap.  The reason this
>>>>>>> is “hard”, is because we don’t really know what qualia are, and everyone
>>>>>>> considers qualia to be ineffable.  We have no idea how would could falsify
>>>>>>> a statement like: “My redness is like your greenness” This lack of any
>>>>>>> ideas of how such might be falsified is the ONLY so-called hard problem.
>>>>>>> To me, everything else is easy, and we know how to approach it,
>>>>>>> scientifically.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you google for solutions to the hard problem, there is an
>>>>>>> unending supply that will show up.  But, to me, all these so-called
>>>>>>> solutions are all easily falsifiable, and hence easy problems – having
>>>>>>> nothing to do with the real “hard problem” – the qualitative nature of
>>>>>>> consciousness.  To me, this is a clear symptom of the failure to clearly
>>>>>>> state what is and isn’t a hard problem and why.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a redness quale is simply a physical quality of some particular
>>>>>>> matter, we can be directly aware of, you can now finally falsify a “My
>>>>>>> redness is like your greenness” statement, by discovering which matter has
>>>>>>> a redness quality, and which matter does not.  No more “hard” problems.  At
>>>>>>> least that is the way I think about the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [I was not familiar with Levine’s ‘explanatory gap’, with apologies
>>>>>>> for my lack of knowledge in this regard, but I am not a psychologist, so I
>>>>>>> am learning myself, on the job as it were. At any rate I think I can
>>>>>>> provide a reasonable explanation for the ‘explanatory gap’ based on the
>>>>>>> concept of ‘Terminal Addition’. But before I do, I would like to state that
>>>>>>> this kind of confusion in biology about causation is due to  what I stated
>>>>>>> at the outset, that biology remains descriptive, non-mechanistic, and as a
>>>>>>> result is built on associations and correlations, so of course the
>>>>>>> association of pain with injury is a disconnect because the ontology and
>>>>>>> epistemology are inconsistent.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Terminal Addition (
>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reader.elsevier.com_reader_sd_pii_S0079610717302304-3Ftoken-3D8A42C40E500DA9AD1AD71F73CE09548DB524532789A37C44A54DCDE23193BB6C5B19391278867863D771991885CD4FFF&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_WDfT_gdBKOWnXuJfnBl5gXlFfA3ziljg48MN8g5WU&s=iCcuXk0-BScA0Ccr20VAuiQy4ElBPIug0ffl5NRTcoQ&e=
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reader.elsevier.com_reader_sd_pii_S0079610717302304-3Ftoken-3D8A42C40E500DA9AD1AD71F73CE09548DB524532789A37C44A54DCDE23193BB6C5B19391278867863D771991885CD4FFF&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0V5c_q9VtR34908rGK9WTgGae4Pk9Nt-RLF6zXwSpqk&s=VSRAYtzAa7q5wn5yjOauNQi3tVT1flVrjbVVH-mmswE&e=>
>>>>>>> ) is the observation that as traits evolve they appear at the end
>>>>>>> of a series of evolutionary changes, not at the beginning or somewhere in
>>>>>>> the middle. When seen as cell-cell interactions, mediated by growth factors
>>>>>>> and their cell-surface receptors, it is understandable that to insert a new
>>>>>>> trait other than at the terminus would be highly inefficient, forcing other
>>>>>>> collateral changes that have evolved over the course of evolution because
>>>>>>> the downstream intracellular signaling is complex. And it is this ‘wiring’
>>>>>>> that interconnects mechanisms of cellular damage with the feeling of pain,
>>>>>>> for example. The classic example is ‘phantom pain’, which I explained as
>>>>>>> the way in which the organism may have lost some trait, but must retain the
>>>>>>> ‘upstream’ signaling mechanism in order to sustain the other evolved traits
>>>>>>> and remain as ‘normal’ as possible in order to pass on its genetics
>>>>>>> reproductively.]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I genuinely hope that you will understand my explanations because
>>>>>>> they do resolve many dogmas in biology due to the descriptive nature of the
>>>>>>> discipline, which must change if we are to make progress in biology and
>>>>>>> medicine.  I welcome criticism, further comments and queries.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [image: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ssl.gstatic.com_ui_v1_icons_mail_images_cleardot.gif&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_WDfT_gdBKOWnXuJfnBl5gXlFfA3ziljg48MN8g5WU&s=SHzL0SjutzeUUGN4UZ22fLCqhGHjRQG7DnFkHqSBQSQ&e=]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:09 AM Brent Allsop <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m having troubles integrating what you are saying into my view of
>>>>>>>> the world.  Things like “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to
>>>>>>>> it” doesn’t seem to fit.  For me, the big problem is that people tend to
>>>>>>>> think of “Consciousness” (or consciousness?) as a singular thing.
>>>>>>>> Pan-psychism, at best talks about elemental matter having “proto-psychism”
>>>>>>>> or something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To me, Consciousness, free will, self-awareness, intentionality,
>>>>>>>> love... (and consciousness?) are all composite things composed of lots of
>>>>>>>> stuff.  To me, qualia or physical qualities are elemental things out of
>>>>>>>> which all these composite things are constructed.  When we are consciously
>>>>>>>> aware of a strawberry, we have knowledge represented by elemental redness
>>>>>>>> and greenness physical qualities, representing the strawberry.  Physical
>>>>>>>> qualities are elemental standalone things, which can be computationally
>>>>>>>> bound together to become our composite knowledge of the strawberry.  The
>>>>>>>> computational binding which provides “situational awareness” of what we
>>>>>>>> need to do to pick the red things, while avoiding the green things is also
>>>>>>>> something additional.  Would I be correct in thinking that matter which has
>>>>>>>> a redness quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You also said: “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to
>>>>>>>> it, we just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like Chalmer’s
>>>>>>>> ‘hard problem’…)".  I also can’t find a way to integrate statements like
>>>>>>>> that into the way I see the world.  To me, Chalmers struggles defining what
>>>>>>>> is and isn’t part of the hard problem.  But to me, it is only what Joseph
>>>>>>>> Levine calls the “explanatory gap”.  The normal scientific methods is
>>>>>>>> constructing models of various parts of reality that appear to have
>>>>>>>> utility, then working to falsify them.  If you can do that, then it is part
>>>>>>>> of the easy problem.  It seems we can conceive of how we might test such
>>>>>>>> models as animating cosmic blueprints, but perhaps this is just more
>>>>>>>> evidence that I don’t know what you mean by that.  Whatever it is, if we
>>>>>>>> can conceive of ways to verify or falsify such, it is, to me, just an easy
>>>>>>>> problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even Joseph Levine has troubles defining exactly what he means by
>>>>>>>> the “explanatory gap”.  To me, it becomes clear if you provide an example.
>>>>>>>> If you could make a statement like: “my redness is like your greenness”
>>>>>>>> this would be an example of bridging the explanatory gap.  The reason this
>>>>>>>> is “hard”, is because we don’t really know what qualia are, and everyone
>>>>>>>> considers qualia to be ineffable.  We have no idea how would could falsify
>>>>>>>> a statement like: “My redness is like your greenness” This lack of any
>>>>>>>> ideas of how such might be falsified is the ONLY so-called hard problem.
>>>>>>>> To me, everything else is easy, and we know how to approach it,
>>>>>>>> scientifically.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you google for solutions to the hard problem, there is an
>>>>>>>> unending supply that will show up.  But, to me, all these so-called
>>>>>>>> solutions are all easily falsifiable, and hence easy problems – having
>>>>>>>> nothing to do with the real “hard problem” – the qualitative nature of
>>>>>>>> consciousness.  To me, this is a clear symptom of the failure to clearly
>>>>>>>> state what is and isn’t a hard problem and why.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If a redness quale is simply a physical quality of some particular
>>>>>>>> matter, we can be directly aware of, you can now finally falsify a “My
>>>>>>>> redness is like your greenness” statement, by discovering which matter has
>>>>>>>> a redness quality, and which matter does not.  No more “hard” problems.  At
>>>>>>>> least that is the way I think about the world.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brent
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:48 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I like what Skinner said personally.
>>>>>>>>> If only it included the diachronic 'across space-time' component we'd be
>>>>>>>>> all set.....any thoughts? Maybe it's more like 'mindfulness'? jst
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Just for clarity, my definition of “Mind” is the way the word
>>>>>>>>>> has emerged in radical behavioral and cognitive neuroscience circles. This
>>>>>>>>>> is perhaps most clearly captured in B. F. Skinner’s (1987) comment, as
>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cognitive psychologists like to say that "the mind is what the
>>>>>>>>>> brain does," but surely the rest of the body plays a part. The mind is what
>>>>>>>>>> the body does. It is what the person does. In other words, it  is behavior,
>>>>>>>>>> and that is what behaviorists have been saying for more than half a century.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ‘Beingness’ is another term that comes to mind as potentially
>>>>>>>>>> referencing the Implicate Order (as in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:54 AM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's unfortunate that Mind already has a definition for you
>>>>>>>>>> Gregg, because it would have been a good term, to my way of thinking, for
>>>>>>>>>> the intersection of the Cosmological 'blueprint' and how our physiology
>>>>>>>>>> complies with it, like an computer operating system and the software that
>>>>>>>>>> utilizes it. Maybe a new term is needed? jst
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, John.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am reminded that when I use the term Mind (capitalized) I am
>>>>>>>>>> referring to something very different when it is used by Descartes or many
>>>>>>>>>> others. Mind on the ToK corresponds to the dimension of animal behavior,
>>>>>>>>>> versus mind as human self-conscious reflection in many language games.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, your capitalizing Consciousness versus consciousness is
>>>>>>>>>> important as it does highlight that the terms are referencing two different
>>>>>>>>>> things in the universe.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 1:37 PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Gregg, I appreciate your point, and I think that it's the same
>>>>>>>>>> reason the Damasio took me to task when I met with him last Friday about my
>>>>>>>>>> use of the term Consciousness too. You are both clinicians, and to think of
>>>>>>>>>> Consciousness as 'one size fits all' is anathema to the way you have to
>>>>>>>>>> categorize mental health....BUT what I am addressing when I use the term
>>>>>>>>>> Consciousness is like the difference between Truth and Law, the latter
>>>>>>>>>> being a derivative of the former. I don't know if this will help, but I
>>>>>>>>>> have further refined my way of thinking about Consciousness. I now think
>>>>>>>>>> that Consciousness is the 'blueprint' of the Cosmos, animate and inanimate
>>>>>>>>>> alike because homeostasis undergirds all of matter as the 'equal and
>>>>>>>>>> opposite reaction' to the Big Bang....*without homeostasis there
>>>>>>>>>> would be no matter*, *only energy* (and btw this is concordant
>>>>>>>>>> with Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy' in that he too thought
>>>>>>>>>> that the primary state of being is energy, and that matter is merely a
>>>>>>>>>> transient state). And the way in which our physiology has evolved,
>>>>>>>>>> endogenizing the environment and compartmentalizing it is the way we
>>>>>>>>>> perceive that Consciousness 'blueprint' within us, but that's just our
>>>>>>>>>> idiosyncratic way of actualizing the Cosmologic for survival as a result of
>>>>>>>>>> evolving warm-bloodedness (and being bipedal, etc). Otherwise Consciousness
>>>>>>>>>> is pervasive throughout the material world as homeostasis.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Put another way, Consciousness and consciousness are one and the
>>>>>>>>>> same in the Implicate Order.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So I don't distinguish non-conscious from conscious in the sense
>>>>>>>>>> of Consciousness because non-Consciousness is non-existent.  What you are
>>>>>>>>>> referring to is the physiologic mechanism that prevails in REM sleep or
>>>>>>>>>> coma, for example. IMHO, this difference between Consicousness and
>>>>>>>>>> consciousness is important in deliberating about your TOK because it
>>>>>>>>>> addresses the ontology and epistemology of what life constitutes. In terms
>>>>>>>>>> of consciousness, the origins and means of knowing are not consistent,
>>>>>>>>>> whereas they are in terms of Consciousness.  I hope that made sense because
>>>>>>>>>> you have touched on an important distinction between Consciousness and
>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, not to be semantic or argumentative, but to be clear. jst
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:49 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Great discussion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John, as a psychologist, I need a language game that
>>>>>>>>>> differentiates conscious from nonconscious activity. I am curious, how do
>>>>>>>>>> you conceptualize the “unconscious” or nonconscious or subconscious? For a
>>>>>>>>>> psychologist such as myself who uses consciousness to refer to subjective
>>>>>>>>>> experience of being in the world, which, say flickers off each night when I
>>>>>>>>>> sleep, I need to have words that refer to that activity beneath
>>>>>>>>>> subjective/perceptual awareness. (Note, this is *not *self-conscious
>>>>>>>>>> awareness, which is the “knowing that I know” thing).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PS I refer to what you call consciousness in organisms as
>>>>>>>>>> “physiological functional awareness and responsiveness”. That is the kind
>>>>>>>>>> of awareness I see in cells and plants.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PPS. Here is my blog on the meaning and problem of consciousness
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8eFl7R5jcqdh9GkvxqOVPMwgqGf8KGEIPw307jJf71k&s=oRuW40yCYWYZtjmkZVyfGVDUATGYZwsQumurS6UnRkk&e=>
>>>>>>>>>> in case that helps sort out the language game issues we might be having
>>>>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:43 AM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joe et al, thank you for the feed-back. I know that the
>>>>>>>>>> language unfortunately tends to get in the way when we talk across
>>>>>>>>>> disciplines. My hope is that we can overarch the semantic problem, and your
>>>>>>>>>> response is indicative of that. Having said that, the one key idea that I
>>>>>>>>>> would like to get across is that all 'material' existence is the product of
>>>>>>>>>> the 'equal and opposite reaction' to the Big Bang due to Newton's Third Law
>>>>>>>>>> of Motion. Without that, there would be no matter in the Cosmos, only
>>>>>>>>>> energy (So for example, Alfred North Whitehead theorized that the
>>>>>>>>>> predominant 'process' is energetic interactions, and that the material
>>>>>>>>>> state is merely a transient state of being). That 'equal and opposite
>>>>>>>>>> reaction' is the origin of homeostasis for both the biologic and
>>>>>>>>>> non-biologic realms. In physics, homeostasis is what produces balanced
>>>>>>>>>> chemical reactions that form the rocks and dirt that we live on. So all of
>>>>>>>>>> the material Cosmos originates from the same fundamental process. The core
>>>>>>>>>> difference is that chemical homeostasis leads to stasis or stability,
>>>>>>>>>> whereas biologic homeostasis allows for an on-going interactive 'dialogue'
>>>>>>>>>> with the Cosmos, forming and reforming in order to cope with the
>>>>>>>>>> ever-changing environment through direct epigenetic inheritance from the
>>>>>>>>>> environment, or what we refer to as Evolution. And to be clear, I think
>>>>>>>>>> that it is the combination of evolution as the endogenization of the
>>>>>>>>>> external environment (see Lynn Margulis's 'Endosymbiosis Theory') that
>>>>>>>>>> forms our internal physiologic 'knowledge' of the Cosmos/Natural Laws by
>>>>>>>>>> compartmentalizing it and making it useful for survival and perpetuation of
>>>>>>>>>> the species. When that construct is combined with our active dialogue with
>>>>>>>>>> the environment, it generates what we think of anthropomorphically as
>>>>>>>>>> Consciousness. But to reiterate, all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked
>>>>>>>>>> in to it, we just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like
>>>>>>>>>> Chalmer's "hard problem", or the concept of disembodied consciousness
>>>>>>>>>> expressed by Andy Clark), but that's just who and what we are as a species,
>>>>>>>>>> no more, no less. Unfortunately, it also makes us extremely Narcissistic
>>>>>>>>>> because we are the only species that 'knows that we know', which tends to
>>>>>>>>>> innately strike fear of death into us, BUT that is mitigated by the
>>>>>>>>>> perpetual gaining of knowledge through the scientific method. So in terms
>>>>>>>>>> of David Bohm's expression of this in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate
>>>>>>>>>> Order" as The Explicate Order, which is the way we see things through our
>>>>>>>>>> subjective senses, versus the Implicate Order, which is the absolute true
>>>>>>>>>> order of things, scientific knowledge moves us ever further away from the
>>>>>>>>>> Explicate Order, and toward the Implicate Order. I hope that was helpful,
>>>>>>>>>> and I welcome any and all comments, criticisms, etc, etc in the spirit of
>>>>>>>>>> constructive dialogue.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Greetings from the frozen north John (et al.). Thank you for your
>>>>>>>>>> latest contributions. As ever, I find your work tremendously fascinating. I
>>>>>>>>>> think I largely agree with your argument. Maybe I'm just struggling with
>>>>>>>>>> the semantics in some ways. I fully agree with the linkage of energy to the
>>>>>>>>>> homeostatic processes and the various "survival" mechanisms in nature
>>>>>>>>>> across all forms of life. And I entirely agree with your argument about
>>>>>>>>>> cellular efforts to maintain information distinctiveness and energy
>>>>>>>>>> efficiencies, at least at the theoretical level (I have no applied
>>>>>>>>>> experience in the field beyond my novice attempts to study life through
>>>>>>>>>> microscopes as an undergraduate!). Perhaps it's just the fact that, apart
>>>>>>>>>> from our anthropomorphism, we have just conventionally used the term
>>>>>>>>>> "consciousness" in conjunction with the presence of the "mind" and mental
>>>>>>>>>> behavior. But if you're main argument, as I get used to the more complex
>>>>>>>>>> language you use to describe the biological processes, is that everything
>>>>>>>>>> biological - from the cellular to the organismic levels - responds to their
>>>>>>>>>> environments by deploying energy and processing information to maintain
>>>>>>>>>> organizational continuity (my wording) or homeostasis, then I agree fully.
>>>>>>>>>> And then, as you've indicated, you can define consciousness & intelligence
>>>>>>>>>> as linked to these processes as opposed to our usual link to the Mind or
>>>>>>>>>> "mental behavior." Or maybe I'm must over(under?)-thinking the argument!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again for sharing some of your latest work. I do think
>>>>>>>>>> that you and your colleagues have offered a fascinating argument about how
>>>>>>>>>> to conceptualize the "self" in an even grander fashion. With kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>> -Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 1:54 PM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dear Gregg and Joe, thanks for sharing that clip from Amadeus.
>>>>>>>>>> Based on my own reduction of 'self' with Bill Miller (see attached; ideally
>>>>>>>>>> to be read in the context of 'The Singularity of Nature' (see attached), I
>>>>>>>>>> think that the transactional process between Salieri and Mozart required
>>>>>>>>>> that both had a strong sense of who they were, because if not, one would
>>>>>>>>>> have subsumed the other for lack of 'character strength' for lack of a
>>>>>>>>>> better term. Ideally, they would have struck a homeostatic 'balance' that
>>>>>>>>>> you are referring to as the + TGB SS. But ultimately I think we have to
>>>>>>>>>> understand the premise of 'how and why' we exist or this is all just
>>>>>>>>>> sophistry. Why homeostasis- because it is the mechanism that prevailed
>>>>>>>>>> post-Big Bang....the 'equal and opposite reaction that ascribes to Newton's
>>>>>>>>>> Third Law of Motion. I say that because without it there would be no
>>>>>>>>>> matter, just free, chaotic energy (Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process
>>>>>>>>>> Philosophy'). So homeostasis is the universal principle behind all matter,
>>>>>>>>>> inanimate and animate alike. So that would suggest pan-psychism, which we
>>>>>>>>>> agree seems silly- a rock is not conscious, unless we are defining
>>>>>>>>>> consciousness as what we humans think it is, but is not.  Cut to the chase,
>>>>>>>>>> I think that we misconstrue consciousness as being aware of ourselves and
>>>>>>>>>> our surroundings, but that is an anthropomorphism. All organisms are
>>>>>>>>>> conscious, it's just a function of their particular environment/Niche as to
>>>>>>>>>> what it constitutes, which is the endogenization of the external
>>>>>>>>>> environment, forming physiology by compartmentalizing those features of the
>>>>>>>>>> Laws of Nature in order to survive and remain in sync with The First
>>>>>>>>>> Principles of Physiology, which reference the Singularity prior to the Big
>>>>>>>>>> Bang. So in other words Consciousness is the way in which we and all matter
>>>>>>>>>> connect with the Cosmos as the entirety of the product of the
>>>>>>>>>> Singularity/Big Bang. Only then will we understand the + TGB SS, IMHO.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:02 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing Gregg. Indeed, I had transcribed the words of
>>>>>>>>>> the clip and shared these because I thought it represented such an
>>>>>>>>>> excellent example of what the pursuit of the TGB looks like when, however
>>>>>>>>>> fleetingly, that occurs unfettered by all the trappings of one's ego. It's
>>>>>>>>>> below zero here (Fahrenheit), but I already have a warm feeling for the
>>>>>>>>>> rest of the day! Peace, -Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada  N6A 2M3
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fax: (519) 963-1263
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg -
>>>>>>>>>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 8:15 AM
>>>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* + True Good Beautiful Self-States
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi List,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Joe M and I were talking yesterday about the nature of Positive
>>>>>>>>>> True/Good/Beautiful Self-states (+ TGB SS), relative to Negative
>>>>>>>>>> False/Bad/Ugly Self-States (- FBU SS). He reminded me of the movie Amadeus,
>>>>>>>>>> and explained why it was such a great illustration of these dynamics
>>>>>>>>>> (although apparently the movie is not exactly an accurate portrayal of
>>>>>>>>>> Salieri’s actual relationship to Mozart). In the movie, Salieri struggles
>>>>>>>>>> with feelings of jealousy, envy and inadequacy, and at the same time, loves
>>>>>>>>>> the beauty of Mozart.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Here is a great clip where he makes full contact with that side
>>>>>>>>>> of the equation and thus you can see and feel the + TGB SS flow…
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a_WDfT_gdBKOWnXuJfnBl5gXlFfA3ziljg48MN8g5WU&s=010dqLi0x5zfYCSGzeorv4Yxm1bO0E6VvXeKtZ3caF0&e=
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> mozart salieri favorite - Yahoo Video Search Results
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> video.search.yahoo.com
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__video.search.yahoo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=felM6t-23shozx04zWWYuMYveYgVSLrmBcAdF8HJ0ls&s=41mXkwngbtuHsClipM7egoI1AAGfDEOhjHs9BjlCQwQ&e=>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking
>>>>>>>>>> for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from
>>>>>>>>>> all across the Web.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>   Thanks to Joe who pointed this out to me yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>> G
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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


ATOM RSS1 RSS2