Hi John,



“Perhaps is it blood?” for which “red” is a label for.



You’re still not picking up on how this is sloppy thinking and sloppy
definitions about physical qualities.  Wouldn’t it be more accurate to
state that red is a label for any physical surface that reflects, or emits
“red” light?  And, again, if you engineered a red green signal inverter in
the retina, now your knowledge of the blood (or anything that reflects or
emits red light) has a greenness quality.  So, does this not prove that it
isn’t ‘blood’ that has a physically causal redness (or greenness) quality?



So, if “red” is a label for any physical surface that reflects or emits
“red” light, which physical quality is “redness” a label for?


Brent




On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 3:43 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Brent and List, thanks Brent for your patience in trying to understand
> how my 'take' on evolution differs from Darwin. And yes, your paraphrasing
> is correct, so I hope that's helpful. And as for 'which quality is red a
> label for' as I had said, perhaps it is blood? There is an article in the
> literature that hypothesizes that color vision evolved from blood, which I
> will try to find. John
>
> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 10:15 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi John,
>>
>>
>>
>> I think I’m starting to better understand what you are saying.  Let me
>> see if I can repeat what you are talking about, to see if I’m starting to
>> understand.
>>
>>
>>
>> Darwinian evolution models only really model things like achieving more
>> offspring.  Whereas considering cell-cell communication in embryologic
>> development as central better models homeostasis superimposed on
>> phylogeny.  This is a better way to understand the process of evolution.
>>
>>
>>
>> I still have a question for you, about what you mean when you say: “perhaps
>> we see *'red'* when we are writhing in pain because it references
>> bleeding as a process related to pain”.  I understand what you mean,
>> abstractly.  But I have no idea what you mean, qualitatively.  In order to
>> know what red means, qualitatively, you must tell me which physical quality
>> it is a label for.  Since you never do this, I can’t know what you mean,
>> qualitatively, when you use the term *“red”.*
>>
>>
>>
>> So that is my question, which physical quality do you consider red to be
>> a label for?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 6:10 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Gregg, Brent, Aeon and List, if I could just jump in here, much of
>>> what is being said by all needs IMHO to be reconsidered in light of the
>>> difference between descriptive and mechanistic Biology/Physiology. So for
>>> example, semiotics is a description of what I have been referring to with
>>> respect to the centrality of cell-cell communication in embryologic
>>> development and homeostasis superimposed on phylogeny as the way to
>>> understand the process of evolution. That's very different from Darwinian
>>> evolution based on a reproductive strategy for more offspring, which is a
>>> materialistic viewpoint. In terms of Brent's quest for answering the 'Hard
>>> Question' of Qualia, I think the answer lies in the way I have recalibrated
>>> Pleiotropy, the capacity of biology to recombine/repermute the same gene
>>> for multiple purposes over the course of evolution. Up until now that
>>> phenomenon has remained a fascinoma, but seen in the context of evolution,
>>> it is explained by the pre-adaptational strategy of reutilizing genes under
>>> duress as the most economical way of solving existential problems
>>> evolutionarily. In the context of Qualia, perhaps we see 'red' when we are
>>> writhing in pain because it references bleeding as a process related to
>>> pain, the two processes being linked through common cellular-molecular
>>> signaling mechanisms. As for Aeon, I fully ascribe to the idea that we need
>>> to address how to re-synthesize philosophy and empiricism if I am correct
>>> in thinking that we've gotten evolution 'backwards' and that the
>>> unicellular state is the primary level of selection based on the emerging
>>> knowledge of epigenetic inheritance. With the Best of Intentions. John
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 7:42 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi List,
>>>>
>>>>   A friend sent this essay in Aeon on the relationship between
>>>> philosophy and science and the need to return to a natural philosophy
>>>> approach:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_bring-2Dback-2Dscience-2Dand-2Dphilosophy-2Das-2Dnatural-2Dphilosophy-3Futm-5Fsource-3DAeon-2BNewsletter-26utm-5Fcampaign-3D16c95a1325-2DEMAIL-5FCAMPAIGN-5F2019-5F05-5F13-5F03-5F04-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fterm-3D0-5F411a82e59d-2D16c95a1325-2D69915925&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=PnPQg2NZlzmQJcRj5k1_4baQrKfAJO8EGp8F3xyjFvo&s=moLhKksRLpfxa917dfG3rNpRXomnBPhEXkhJJe6Yqk8&e=
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_bring-2Dback-2Dscience-2Dand-2Dphilosophy-2Das-2Dnatural-2Dphilosophy-3Futm-5Fsource-3DAeon-2BNewsletter-26utm-5Fcampaign-3D16c95a1325-2DEMAIL-5FCAMPAIGN-5F2019-5F05-5F13-5F03-5F04-26utm-5Fmedium-3Demail-26utm-5Fterm-3D0-5F411a82e59d-2D16c95a1325-2D69915925&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dFVdlOFuFfkQC0g6biXlvVLZsP2vJxZfvnsSXc39KVU&s=0_AzQ9yI47iQK9ucAwT5NR2XIcx2ABsrsNB05yuKWPY&e=>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>   I am on Maxwell’s Friends of Wisdom list as I became aware of his
>>>> work several months ago. It is a similar, although also different vision
>>>> for philosophy and science than the ToK System offers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> G
>>>>
>>>> ___________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
>>>> Professor
>>>> Department of Graduate Psychology
>>>> 216 Johnston Hall
>>>> MSC 7401
>>>> James Madison University
>>>> Harrisonburg, VA 22807
>>>> (540) 568-7857 (phone)
>>>> (540) 568-4747 (fax)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.*
>>>>
>>>> Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=PnPQg2NZlzmQJcRj5k1_4baQrKfAJO8EGp8F3xyjFvo&s=k2ojN9J32wRJg4UsFWMfeAAWgzeDc9K71NXcOS_944c&e=
>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dFVdlOFuFfkQC0g6biXlvVLZsP2vJxZfvnsSXc39KVU&s=hPnpDpg37-IlprEcDtCmrkgtNgPexNBHLnt_yDLVIXo&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