Gregg, so hope you don't mind, but I enlisted Bill Miller to help me
understand why you and I have a difference of opinion regarding the meaning
for metaphysics. His opinion is that psychologists assume that everything
we think of is due to the subjectivity of mind, so of course by definition
I am talking about a metaphysical opinion, not facts. I find that difficult
to countenance because my career has been vested in providing the basic
scientific data for the practice of evidence-based medicine (in
contradistinction to the 'art' of medicine, which is metaphysics). My
approach to evolution has been based on developmental physiology, founded
on hypothesis-tested experiments from numerous laboratories around the
world, a consensus having been formed for these data based on statistical
metrics, i.e. that the data are statistically significantly different. So
this, IMHO, is not metaphysics, it's physics, as I have intimated in my
papers, showing the homologies between Quantum Mechanics and the cell. So
unless you think that physics is also opinion, I don't get your way of
thinking about my perspective as metaphysics. I had hoped that my science
and theory would be adjunctive to your ToK, but not if what I am providing
is metaphysics......So for example, I am reading Andy Clark's book
"Supersizing the Mind" in which he explains disembodied consciousness. I
think that what he is describing is a superficial understanding of what I
am saying about consciousness as the aggregate of our physiology, as a
reflection of the Singularity. So what Clark is expressing is analogous
with explaining physics and chemistry without knowing Atomic Theory, in all
humility.....your thoughts?

On Sun, Apr 22, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> John,
>
>   I appreciate that you want to get as far away from “metaphysics” as you
> can. I just want you to be clear that we mean different things by the term.
>
>
>
>   To see my meaning, consider that you talk frequently about getting
> mainstream biologists “out of the box” of description after the fact (i.e.,
> consequences of natural selection) and into the box of view life from its
> origins via first principles that allow for a mechanistic understanding
> more akin to the physical and chemical sciences.
>
>
>
> The Alice in Wonderland-out-of-the-box-shift that you frequently refer to
> is, in my language game, referencing the metaphysical system (i.e., the
> ideas or conceptual framework) that functions to interpret the data. The
> mainstream biological “box” that you are fighting against is the
> metaphysical system, and, as you have experienced, it is a very powerful
> force 😊.
>
>
>
> 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