Mark, so when were you at the U-W? I was a post-doc in the NIH Reproductive
Endocrinology Program 1974-76.
The road from the evolution of physiology to consciousness is somewhat
convoluted, and is highly dependent on multiple biologic disciplines, but
here goes. If you start from Hameroff and Penrose, for example, they weigh
in heavily on microtubules in neurons being the 'connection' between parts
of the brain that account for 'mind', which is distributive. But why would
one stop at the microtubules of the neurons given that they are present in
the body too? And in fact I have laid claim to the idea that the
cytoskeleton, which is composed of microtubules, is actually the
determinant of the phenotypic state of the cell- homeostatic, meiotic or
mitotic. I came to that conclusion in trying to mathematically model the
way in which I have reduced physiologic evolution. In the course of doing
so, I found that all of the properties of the cell funnel through the
Target of Rapamycin (TOR) gene, which is mechanically linked to the
cytoskeleton, such that metabolism, oxygenation, ionic concentrations,
nutrients and mechanotransduction all ultimately signal to the TOR gene,
which controls the cytoskeletal configuration of the cell. So for example,
if you expose yeast to microgravity they can no longer polarize, i.e.
mediate a calcium flux, nor can they reproduce. In other words, by
dissociating them from their gravitational environment, they become
'comatose'. The same thing happens if you put lung and bone cells in
microgravity- they lose their ability to signal to other cells to maintain
their phenotype due to the loss of Parathyroid Hormone-related Protein
(PTHrP) signaling, which is necessary for the formation of the alveoli of
the lung, the skeleton and the skin. The latter relates to the brain
because it is now known that the brain evolved from the skin (Nick
Holland's 'skin-brain' hypothesis). So the PTHrP signaling network
literally connects higher consciousness with visceral organ signaling
mechanisms. I hope that was clear enough.
So how I got to this way of thinking about vertebrate evolution is a 50
year slog, starting with the observation that the simple molecule cortisol
profoundly affects the rate of fetal development, accelerating its
physiologic development. So much so that it is used in women threatening
preterm labor, preventing the preterm infant from dying due to lung
immaturity. That observation has put food on the table for me and many
others who have been trying to figure out how and why the endocrine and
respiratory systems are interrelated in utero for the last half century or
so. Clinically it put newborn medicine on the map, but in terms of science,
it made no intuitive sense.....but I was able to break the mechanism down
to a paracrine effect of the hormone on the fibroblasts of the alveolar
wall, which produce a low molecular weight peptide that stimulates the
development of the alveolus through cell-cell interactions. I finally had
amassed enough data to understand how this mechanism works within the
alveolus, particularly the role of stretching of the cells by lung liquid
in utero to put a model together that connected the molecular dots from the
present structure and function of the lung alveolus all the way back to the
first cell- the connection being made by the role of cholesterol in
alveolar homeostasis in the lung and the cell membrane of unicellular
organisms, and all of the intermediary steps (see the books). Because there
are common cell-molecular pathways for the lung and other visceral organs-
skin, bone, kidney, brain- a comprehensive way of thinking about vertebrate
physiologic evolution from its unicellular origins to the present could be
formulated. Based on this cellular-molecular approach, the brain can be
seen as evolving in tandem with the visceral organs- for example, the
epidermal growth factor pathway that mediates the development of the lung,
skin and bone accounts for myelinization of neurons, and the lung and skin
are homologues since they both are gas-exchangers. So given all of that,
beginning with the original premise that evolution occurred as a result of
the endogenization of the external environment, why not consider that what
we conventionally think of as 'consciousness' is our innate awareness of
our physiologic constituents? Think of what happens when you eat a heavy
meal late at night, and you have nightmares all night long. The idea that
the brain is just another visceral organ would resolve David Chalmers'
'hard problem' of where qualia come from, for example, and I have
hypothesized that the unicellular state was the first Niche Construction-
organisms externalizing their physiology into the environment- beavers
building dams, earthworms remodeling the soil so their aquatic kidneys can
still function, humans building towns and cities- so if the internalization
of the environment, which was necessary for survival...consider the
compartmentalization of iron to form heme protein to breath....why not
consider the possibility that what we think of as consciousness is our
innate awareness of ourselves and our surroundings? Please ask questions
because this is not an easy concept, yet it predicts many otherwise
dogmatic aspects of biology such as why we return to the unicellular state
during the life cycle, or what the phenotype actually constitutes, or why
their are pleiotropic relationships between different parts of the body.
On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> John:
>
> Thanks! I went through your conference slides and look forward to looking
> at these books as well -- all good cell-level analysis, reminding me of my
> own work on rod/cone membranes (taken from frog eyes, done long ago in
> Deric Bownds lab at UW-Mad.)
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vision.
> wisc.edu_staff_bownds-2Dphd-2Dm-2Dderic_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpn
> zycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XofPhkew3QnprYF7XRa7zIntgMNaI9
> ZFEk0it9N9rrk&s=9r22SU0E42XJiy03pfqlehHZmhv997aSCCULZ4U01CY&e=
>
> But, so far, I haven't seen any explanation of why these mechanisms
> *should* have "anything" to with "consciousness" (any more than Penrose's
> quantum approach &c.) What is it that compels you to even believe that
> there *is* a "Theory of Everything" in this sense?
>
> Why is any of this relevant to human "conscious" psychology (which, btw,
> given its *very* recent appearance, seems to be a product of technology,
> not simple biology, per se) . . . ??
>
> Mark
>
> P.S. Are you familiar with the work of Jaynes or Donald (or, for that
> matter, interested) . . . ??
>
>
> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>
> Mark, I deliberately left the details out of my explanation regarding
>> consciousness a) because I gave my lecture at JMU for the ToKers
>> and didn't want to be in their face yet again with my TOE(Theory of
>> Everything), and b) because as Ricky said to Lucy "you got a lot a
>> splanin' to do". Basically, I have been able to take what we know about
>> the
>> morphogenetic mechanisms of lung development as cell-cell
>> communication and work the whole process of gas exchange back to its
>> origins with the insertion of cholesterol into the cell membrane as
>> the catalyst for that property of vertebrates, from unicellular to
>> multicellular organisms. The advantage of this approach is that it starts
>> at
>> the beginning of ontogeny and phylogeny instead of reasoning from the end
>> results backwards, which we know a priori is illogical, and
>> b) is based on testable/refutable data, not philosophy. Suffice it to say
>> that before I started contributing to the literature on evolutionary
>> mechanisms in 2004 there was absolutely no cell biology in that
>> literature,
>> literally, due to the evolutionists by-passing Cell Theory in favor
>> of genetics as their way of advancing evolution theory. I began with lung
>> biology as the archetype for the evolution of vertebrate viscera,
>> and then, because the molecular pathways are shared with other tissues and
>> organs, I was able to extrapolate to other phenotypes.
>> I have attached the PROOF copies of the first three books I have published
>> using this approach.....your comments are welcomed. Of late, I
>> have been focused on Consciousness as the consequence of vertically
>> integrated physiologic evolution because I have hypothesized that
>> it is actually the aggregate of our physilogy, allowing us to be aware of
>> the environment and ourselves because it is the sum total of the
>> endogenization of the external environment....hopefully the books will
>> help
>> make that clear(er)(ish). John
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> John:
>>>
>>> As you know, Mitochondria have no "reasoning" or any of the rest of this
>>> list -- in the sense that these apply to humans. I've read many of your
>>> remarks in the archives but I confess I'm still not sure what you think
>>> about how all of these "powers" developed in human biology.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should get some clarity about your views on how that
>>> "evolution" occurred in biology before we move on to robots (and please
>>> don't answer "complexity/emergence" which is *not* a description of
>>> biology
>>> but rather the way some people model the processes inside stars and other
>>> nuclear furnaces, like hydrogen bombs, which is to say spectacularly
>>> "dead"
>>> things) . . . ??
>>>
>>> "Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" -- Robert Oppenheimer
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> P.S. When I was studying for my PhD in Molecular Biology (c.1971, never
>>> finished largely due to the withdrawal of NSF &al funding post-Vietnam),
>>> I
>>> was very interested in the discussion about how life did-or-did-not
>>> conform
>>> to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As you know, "entropy" and "negentropy,"
>>> along with distinctions between "open" and "closed" energy systems have
>>> long been the terms employed in that dialogue, as well as in the early
>>> discussions about "information theory." I became convinced that these
>>> early 19th-century notions (such as Carnot's 2nd Law, c. 1824), generally
>>> built on 17th notions, came from a *different* scientific paradigm and
>>> most-likely these "machine" terms simply didn't apply to living beings.
>>> Indeed, given what we know now (or, for that matter, what we once knew),
>>> why should they?
>>>
>>> P.P.S. One of my favorite songs (many years ago) was the Soul II Soul
>>> tune, "Get a Life" (aka "What's the Meaning") perhaps you will like it
>>> also
>>> . . . !!
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.you
>>> tube.com_watch-3Fv-3DBOXIBXnMris&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb
>>> 7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j
>>> IYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ABELRMSxycPHOe6uKKJHmVryWmYf3ysD5q3vWB279ig&
>>> s=dMBd46uRDGLb8MlWK_mwiIKqMzWWss1fQ1tYbPu7Bu8&e=
>>>
>>>
>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I wanted to reply to Waldemar's list of human
>>>
>>>> attributes that a computer cannot emulate:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>>>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>>>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>>>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>>>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>>>
>>>> My biased view from many many years of reductionist
>>>> science/biology/evolution theory is that those attributes are
>>>> the net result of the literal endogenization of the external environment
>>>> by
>>>> the cell. The best known example
>>>> is the mitochondrion, which evolved from cohabitation with bacteria, but
>>>> there are many other such
>>>> examples in the evolution of physiology. The other aspect of this
>>>> process
>>>> of evolution is that the organism must have a memory
>>>> that allows it to recall circumstances in its past in order to solve
>>>> emerging environmental problems it is challenged
>>>> by, because all such evolved 'novelties' are due to repurposing of old
>>>> genes for new structures and functions, which
>>>> Stephen J. Gould termed exaptations. The reason I mention all of this is
>>>> because a computer that would
>>>> be able to accomplish the 5 feats listed above would have to be able to
>>>> recapitulate this mechanism of
>>>> evolution in order to be able to mimic consciousness. In other words, it
>>>> couldn't achieve this by merely having a database
>>>> composed of all of the world's Information, but by having a database
>>>> founded hierarchically on human evolutionary 'experience',
>>>> beginning with the ambiguity of the first cell, its internal environment
>>>> constituted by negative entropy, or free
>>>> energy, sustained by chemiosmosis as its source of internal energy, and
>>>> monitored by homeostasis, the aggregate
>>>> of which I have termed The First Principles of Physiology. Awareness of
>>>> these relationships from the first instantation
>>>> of life to what we think of as 'mind' are the 'qualia' that Chalmers has
>>>> invoked for consciousness. And the externalization
>>>> of this process is what Andy Clark has referred to as 'disembodied
>>>> consciousness', which I think is the on-going effort to
>>>> return to the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang, by
>>>> reconciling the dualities and dichotomies that were generated
>>>> by the explosive disruption of the Singularity. Could this process be
>>>> mimicked by Artificial Intelligence?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ToKers:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that changes
>>>>> its
>>>>> demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living -- which is to
>>>>> say,
>>>>> after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it
>>>>> cannot adopt anything like a single "universal" attitude.
>>>>>
>>>>> Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't the
>>>>> same
>>>>> as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's "science" will
>>>>> appear
>>>>> to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as you might recall, my father
>>>>> was
>>>>> a historian of science and I'm trained as a molecular biologist, so I
>>>>> have
>>>>> spent some time thinking about this topic.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not
>>>>> institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as the
>>>>> rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was a science
>>>>> that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this list) the
>>>>> lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read the archives and
>>>>> noted that Gregg and John have already said a few words about all this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture, since it
>>>>> is
>>>>> impossible to actually eliminate what lies underneath/behind whatever
>>>>> science claims itself to be (in any particular paradigm). This fake
>>>>> effort
>>>>> to eliminate what can't be eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of
>>>>> the
>>>>> world" by Max Weber in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has
>>>>> resulted in the current collapse of what many take to be the foundation
>>>>> of
>>>>> "modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific American,
>>>>> John
>>>>> Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken,
>>>>> NJ,
>>>>> where he teaches "creative writing"), wrote a fascinating article
>>>>> titled
>>>>> "How Physics Lost Its Way" that I recommend.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.s
>>>>> cientificamerican.com_cross-2Dcheck_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Di
>>>>> ts-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_
>>>>> Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>>>>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy
>>>>> 5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost in
>>>>> Math:
>>>>> How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend . . . <g>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>> zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_
>>>>> 0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_
>>>>> Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>>>>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNr
>>>>> NdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of
>>>>> *paradigms*
>>>>> -- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until Gregg returns from
>>>>> vacation but perhaps another important book will stimulate some
>>>>> thinking
>>>>> on
>>>>> the matter. This is the crucial topic of *causality*, which, as it
>>>>> turns
>>>>> out, requires metaphysics.
>>>>>
>>>>> Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect" is
>>>>> an
>>>>> attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence researcher (and the
>>>>> "inventor"
>>>>> of Bayesian networks) to put a band-aid on the longstanding problem of
>>>>> *causality* in the West, going back to the Royal Society and its
>>>>> "rejection" (which, btw, does not exist in the same way in the East).
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>> zon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X
>>>>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>>>>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>>>>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0H
>>>>> BRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach
>>>>> Island
>>>>> if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mark
>>>>>
>>>>> P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have noticed
>>>>> that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of Marshall
>>>>> McLuhan.
>>>>> His last book was published posthumously with the title "The Laws of
>>>>> Media:
>>>>> The New Science," although, for many years, that title and subtitle
>>>>> were
>>>>> reversed, echoing the title of Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza
>>>>> Nuova."
>>>>> Vico was writing in opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e.
>>>>> Newton
>>>>> &al), making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately
>>>>> turned
>>>>> out.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FScience&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCg
>>>>> mb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
>>>>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx
>>>>> _mSj8C3g3HDGw&
>>>>> s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
>>>>>
>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the
>>>>> problem
>>>>>
>>>>> I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between
>>>>>> information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> distinction between information and knowledge is that the
>>>>>> Informaticists
>>>>>> think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem,
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is
>>>>>> inadequate
>>>>>> for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we
>>>>>> know
>>>>>> that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As
>>>>>> Jaron
>>>>>> Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget". In
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> 'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
>>>>>> essential.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Friends:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating
>>>>>>> information
>>>>>>> and knowledge.
>>>>>>> John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is
>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>> may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom,
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> vision:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the
>>>>>>> elements
>>>>>>> apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat that the
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
>>>>>>> It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>>>>>>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>>>>>>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>>>>>>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>>>>>>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
>>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>>> Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
>>>>>>> Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
>>>>>>> Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
>>>>>>> application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by
>>>>>>> computers,
>>>>>>> the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
>>>>>>> Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do these
>>>>>>> tasks,
>>>>>>> but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the
>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>> requires considerable education and/or experience.
>>>>>>> Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
>>>>>>> differences between D, I, K, W & V?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Waldemar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>>>>>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>>>>>> 503.631.8044
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> 20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first language
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs
>>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>>> in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
>>>>>>> assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until
>>>>>>> graduate
>>>>>>> school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill
>>>>>>> University
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were actively
>>>>>>> engaged
>>>>>>> in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
>>>>>>> number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us to
>>>>>>> problem
>>>>>>> solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the
>>>>>>> laboratory,
>>>>>>> above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the
>>>>>>> hypothesis
>>>>>>> correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
>>>>>>> research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist does
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> same research, only without having to generate data. When we were
>>>>>>> looking
>>>>>>> for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school
>>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>>> were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
>>>>>>> liberal education was good preparation for such a
>>>>>>> situation.......does
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> narrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher
>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>> to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few students
>>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>>> remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and
>>>>>>>> humanities.
>>>>>>>> But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I
>>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>>> remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the issues
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this
>>>>>>>> degree?
>>>>>>>> This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government
>>>>>>>> ministries
>>>>>>>> consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best, -joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
>>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I
>>>>>>>> find
>>>>>>>> the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the
>>>>>>>> conflation
>>>>>>>> of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the educational
>>>>>>>> mission is
>>>>>>>> equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the
>>>>>>>> 2016
>>>>>>>> Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
>>>>>>>> education. The discussion of that issue revolved around equating
>>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>>> with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those
>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>> advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are
>>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>>> the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom
>>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>>> enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the
>>>>>>>> generation
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of expediency
>>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>>> give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
>>>>>>>> understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are teaching
>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and cents,
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> the result.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
>>>>>>>> points for us to consider. However I think that there's an
>>>>>>>> overriding
>>>>>>>> problem due to the tendency to equate Information and Knowledge.
>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the 'Arab
>>>>>>>> Spring'
>>>>>>>> of technology leveling institutions of society, including
>>>>>>>> science.....discusss?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018
>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>> of *Scientific
>>>>>>>> American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking
>>>>>>>> they've
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
>>>>>>>> well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or what
>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>>> to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the
>>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> a few reasons.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at
>>>>>>>> least the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching
>>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>>> conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns with
>>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our
>>>>>>>> list-serv.
>>>>>>>> Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we hope
>>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own
>>>>>>>> "confirmation
>>>>>>>> biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to help
>>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>>> us honest!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as
>>>>>>>> exemplars) the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be
>>>>>>>> fair-minded, 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints,
>>>>>>>> new
>>>>>>>> info, etc. And yet the academy itself has been increasingly under
>>>>>>>> attack in
>>>>>>>> recent years as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> embracing alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers,
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>> the right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal
>>>>>>>> orthodoxy" or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university
>>>>>>>> professors -- scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>> issue a couple of weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> the issue is actually much broader in the sense that these issues
>>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>>> all of us, both inside and outside of academia. It's not simply a
>>>>>>>> matter of
>>>>>>>> any of us being "experts" in our fields or far more knowledgeable
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> "facts" and "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All
>>>>>>>> knowledge has a relational component too, i.e., depends upon the
>>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>>> location of the actors relative to each other in combination with
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> cultural sources of justification systems invoked. This explains in
>>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>>> measure, in my view, the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake
>>>>>>>> news"
>>>>>>>> critiques that have gained such popularity.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many
>>>>>>>> fields
>>>>>>>> within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and
>>>>>>>> humanities
>>>>>>>> -- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have
>>>>>>>> helped
>>>>>>>> certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many
>>>>>>>> generations
>>>>>>>> (and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
>>>>>>>> well-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms
>>>>>>>> something I've hypothesized about for years) showing the adverse
>>>>>>>> effects of
>>>>>>>> early childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and
>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>> adverse behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and
>>>>>>>> "interpret"
>>>>>>>> that information? What are the implications for even something as
>>>>>>>> basic
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> "equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
>>>>>>>> exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other
>>>>>>>> factors
>>>>>>>> that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in a
>>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>>> neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a
>>>>>>>> thousand
>>>>>>>> other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the
>>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>>> mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm
>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> la
>>>>>>>> Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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-bi
>>>>>>>> n/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-bi
>>>>>>>> n/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-bi
>>>>>>>> n/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-bi
>>>>>>> n/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-bi
>>>>>>> n/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
|
