John:

This is fun . . . !!

Gregg's ToK, as I understand it,  is a sequence of "levels" in which  
different "rules" (an/or "capabilities") apply -- or as he terms it  
"dimensions of complexity  (reminding us of Cantor &al).

I'm confused about how your approach to evolution, which has  
fascinated me since I first studied Lamarck (and did a detailed  
"political" analysis of Lysenko) somehow "explains" what Gregg has done?

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Trofim-5FLysenko&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=cXk0ZQ9t4A-leDYDYQfT0Pa7bApcJzdQWfF2tODXmUQ&s=38JgUmJaPcWnmj7CTsm-udnlr9UhmFgoG6J_PlX-8M4&e=

Thanks,

Mark

P.S. What if our "demon" actually is Satan (tempting us to become  
Gods, as your ancestors believed)?

P.P.S. You have (along with others) redefined "consciousness" to equal  
life (or at least cellular life).  That's fine but it's obviously  
*not* the same thing as human "consciousness" (which Julian Jaynes  
suggested is only 2500 years old, therefore, not "genotypical").

P.P.P.S. Heliocentism was "overthrown" by Einstein's "Special Theory,"  
since there is no way to tell what is "standing still."  If you wish  
to remove humanity from the "center" then you will have to put  
something else in its place.  God (nope). Aliens/angels (nope). Cells  
(looks like it).  I wonder if Einstein would agree?


Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:

> Mark, I just read the McCluhan lecture that you so kindly sent me. I found
> it very interesting and informative. BTW, there's a printing museum in
> Torrance CA, which we have visited. According to the docent the printing
> press was a derivative of the wine press, so Guttenberg was clever, but not
> a genius in the sense of making something out of nothing as he is usually
> characterized. But my take away from the lecture is that we continue to
> perpetuate the deceptions that allow us to cope with the ambiguity in which
> we began as life forms. Until we recognize that systematic error and
> self-correct we will just continue down the garden path to our own self
> destruction. Witness what is going on around the globe, or is that just the
> product of the 24 hour news cycle......unfortunately I don't think so.
> We're just figuring out ways to deceive one another using ever more potent
> means. Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but at some point we as a species
> need to confront our demons.
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 6:14 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Mark, I know you haven't responded to my last post, but I am reading "The
>> Book of Why" at your suggestion and I come to the statement that "Evolution
>> has endowed us with the ability to engineer our lives" and stop dead in my
>> tracks. Evolution as we currently understand it is WRONG......it's based on
>> descriptive biology, not the mechanisms that have evolved to allow us to
>> survive as the fittest.....it's like basing Quantum Mechanics on Alchemy or
>> interpreting data from the Space Telescope using Astrology. And BTW, I am
>> not the only one to say this. I have attached a paper that similarly
>> questions how we see the heart as a 'pump', whereas by understanding how
>> the heart evolved we understand the principles and pathology very
>> differently. I have a fundamental problem with building AI on human
>> intelligence when we don't understand the fundamentals of
>> intelligence......that's a very dangerous trajectory IMHO. As you know, I
>> have written extensively about how Consciousness is not our brain/mind but
>> our self-awareness, which is a holistic way of thinking about
>> consciousness. How AI will affect a process we are ignorant of is, by
>> definition, irrational. Moreover, I think that technical advances built on
>> the current way of thinking about our existence exacerbates the underlying
>> problem that we are trying to address in the TOK. The mere idea that Big
>> Data will solve the problems of biology and medicine makes no sense to me.
>> It is the Informatics attitude that if you haven't solved the problem you
>> just need more data. That may work in a closed, finite system, but biology
>> is 'greater than the sum of its parts'. Don't you wonder why we had
>> expected the Human Genome to be at least 100,000 genes, given that a carrot
>> has 40,000 genes in its genome......last I looked we're down to 19,000
>> genes in the Human Genome and counting. That's because we're using the
>> wrong approach to biology and evolution. Why would we want to amplify such
>> misinformation technologically?
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 5:30 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Mark, in my on-going effort to find common ground with you and other
>>> TOKers I will read the Eric McCluhan speech. In the meantime, I continue to
>>> ponder why you don't accept my analogy between Heliocentrism and my
>>> breakthrough idea about how to look at evolution from its origins. The
>>> algorithm is consistent with many concepts in biology and medicine, and
>>> predicts interrelationships mechanistically rather than dogmatically. In
>>> this vein I would like to point out that up until last year there was no
>>> scientific precedent for Self-Referential Self-Organization.....then, in
>>> 2017 there were two independent studies showing that Yttrium atoms
>>> self-organize (Zhang J, P.W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, A. Lee, J.
>>> Smith, G. Pagano, I.-D. Potirniche, A.C. Potter, A. Vishwanath, N.Y. Yao,
>>> and C. Monroe. 2017. Observation of a discrete time crystal. *Nature*
>>> 543:217-220). That seminal observation should give pause in thinking
>>> about the implications of that observation, no? How does that property of
>>> matter affect our worldview? If nothing else, the skeptics who opted out of
>>> the kind of thinking I have been doing can no longer reject it on the basis
>>> of lack of evidence for Self-referential Self-Organization. Best, John
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John:
>>>>
>>>> . . . we need a new Renaissance/Age of Reason IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good call.  However other than wishful-thinking (and the modern version
>>>> of "just so" stories about "Gaia" &c), that would require some
>>>> understanding of why these things happen, right (bringing us back to the
>>>> topic of causality)?
>>>>
>>>> (Hint: that time it was the Printing Press, so what might it be this
>>>> time?)
>>>>
>>>> As it turns out, in 2011, I guest-edited a Special Centennial issue of
>>>> the journal Renascence on Marshall McLuhan (who was born in 1911)  
>>>> for which
>>>> I invited Eric McLuhan (who has just recently passed away) to submit his
>>>> essay "On Renaissances" (plural).  In 2012, I invited him to give  
>>>> this as a
>>>> speech at the UN at a conference on the "Dialogue of Civilizations" that I
>>>> helped to organize there.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps you will enjoy reading it and may find a few clues in its
>>>> language . . . !!
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.the
>>>> freelibrary.com_On-2Brenaissances.-2Da0280004550&d=DwIDaQ&c=
>>>> eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClog
>>>> P-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lh6Lcd-ER-b1V1FpzT-hBnKCIm1L
>>>> g-4-z2gbH3mhQsY&s=TL6GbpKqmT2q9vNiF11Efm_ZaWjM6YVP-U-XIe-GEEg&e=
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you Joe for that tour de force description of the TOK landscape. I
>>>>> would like to repeat that in an age when
>>>>> Information and Knowledge are seen as coequals, we need a new
>>>>> hierarchy/compass/frame of reference within
>>>>> which to think about the past/present/future. Gregg has rallied us
>>>>> around
>>>>> the discipline (or lack there of) of Psychology,
>>>>> but IMHO that is one of many disciplines looking for an identity. Mark
>>>>> Stahlman pointed out the sense we now have
>>>>> that life is probabilistic based on our current knowledge of
>>>>> physics/Quantum Mechanics, leading to the Big Chill of
>>>>> the Cosmos. As those of you who have read my contributions know, I don't
>>>>> agree with that. My reduction of biology
>>>>> has led me to conclude that life is a combination of determinism and
>>>>> Free
>>>>> Will based on The First Principles of Physiology,
>>>>> which would, if credible, lead to The Big Thrill of the realization that
>>>>> everything in the Cosmos is interconnected....really,
>>>>> not just as a nice idea that the poets and artists allude to. If my
>>>>> analysis is correct, and we have been reasoning after
>>>>> the fact when we could be reasoning in a forward direction, from our
>>>>> origins, that suggests to me that our logical
>>>>> frame is incorrect, forcing us to reconsider the way we think, not
>>>>> unlike
>>>>> the way in which Western philosophy and
>>>>> thought changed after the acceptance of Heliocentrism. So if you got it
>>>>> 'wrong' perhaps we can reboot and move forward
>>>>> again....we need a new Renaissance/Age of Reason IMHO.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 4:30 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi folks. I'll weigh in at this point with some observations, hopefully
>>>>>> connecting to the broader themes of our list. We are a diverse group
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> spans the arts & humanities, social and natural sciences. Our passions
>>>>>> include the proverbial triad of "the good, the true, and the
>>>>>> beautiful," as
>>>>>> well as how these various evaluative modes might be integrated and
>>>>>> advance
>>>>>> a broader, 21st-century enlightenment project. I suspect that many of
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> biographies intersect with our historical/generational locations and
>>>>>> cultural backgrounds to help explain our particular interests in the
>>>>>> different fields of knowledge we have pursued. One of the great
>>>>>> benefits of
>>>>>> the list, then (on which I have previously commented), consists of
>>>>>> learning
>>>>>> from others who have shared some of their work and thoughts about
>>>>>> matters
>>>>>> with which we are all less familiar. For example, at present I am
>>>>>> currently working on a "deep dive" into John's work, which I find
>>>>>> interesting and challenging. Similarly, the other presentations from
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> ToK conference Gregg organized have already stimulated further
>>>>>> cross-fertilization, a more conciliatory understanding of knowledge
>>>>>> development, and possibly some collaborative work as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Both John and Gregg have offered some rather compelling meta-analytic
>>>>>> perspectives on cosmological evolution -- which are open to discussion,
>>>>>> critique, and refinement -- while others have contributed more specific
>>>>>> theses and observations relevant to their different fields. And I must
>>>>>> confess that Dave Pruett ("a former NASA researcher (and) an
>>>>>> award-winning
>>>>>> computational scientist and emeritus professor of mathematics at James
>>>>>> Madison University" - sorry to brag on your behalf, Dave!) has already
>>>>>> inspired me to want to develop and offer a capstone course on "the big
>>>>>> questions" (e.g., "why are we here" -- which has many different
>>>>>> meanings
>>>>>> and interpretations!) at my own university. I love how Dave has been
>>>>>> able
>>>>>> to offer a course that examines the grand cosmological question from
>>>>>> both a
>>>>>> "mythological" (cultural) and a "scientific" perspective, as he
>>>>>> described
>>>>>> at the conference. If you didn't see that, then check out his TED talk
>>>>>> "Ripples in the Cosmic Web."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.you
>>>>>> tube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb
>>>>>> 7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j
>>>>>> IYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=POmLosCA0tYJjs_9TZnQPfQXaSnQYSIwmixG5vwr8ak&
>>>>>> s=LjtMOtZzgS-7Nb0RR-9fQuE_bklguSGt9D_qXcoIXbM&e=
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.yo
>>>>>> utube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm
>>>>>> b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-
>>>>>> jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs
>>>>>> &s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.yo
>>>>>> utube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm
>>>>>> b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-
>>>>>> jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs
>>>>>> &s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
>>>>>> Ripples in the Cosmic Web | Dr. David Pruett | TEDxJMU
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.yo
>>>>>> utube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgm
>>>>>> b7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-
>>>>>> jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs
>>>>>> &s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
>>>>>> www.youtube.com
>>>>>> Ripples in the Cosmic Web | Dr. David Pruett | TEDxJMU David Pruitt is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> professor in the James Madison University Honors College. This talk was
>>>>>> given at a TEDx event ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As Dave briefly mentions, one of our greatest challenges, *especially*
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> diverse countries such as the U.S. & Canada, is the search for a common
>>>>>> narrative, or what Harari describes as "shared myths" (including
>>>>>> science).
>>>>>> Gregg's Tree of Knowledge approach (and subsequent work), John's
>>>>>> challenge
>>>>>> to Darwinian theory (including his paper "The Singularity of Nature"),
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Steve Q's sharing of Stephen Pepper's World Hypotheses all challenge
>>>>>> us to
>>>>>> think and "re-think" what we know. I'm not sharing anything * new
>>>>>> *here,
>>>>>> but rather just reaffirming my appreciation for the dialogue and our
>>>>>> shared
>>>>>> struggle. Glad to see Mark's contributions too, as I believe the
>>>>>> critical
>>>>>> juncture we have reached involves the intersection of cultural and the
>>>>>> rapidity of technological development ("Future Shock" indeed!) that
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> far outstripped our biological or animalistic evolution, recounted by
>>>>>> numerous authors, cultural critics, and scientists alike. Just saw the
>>>>>> movie "Hidden Figures" last night, reminding me for the 10,000th time
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> the tribalism of our species and our core survival strategies (the
>>>>>> ways in
>>>>>> which we manage and secure resources for ourselves and our kin, for
>>>>>> example) have not changed much since the emergence of Homo sapiens.
>>>>>> Stated
>>>>>> another way, although I'm a student of culture and technology, the
>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>> does not stack up well for our long-term survival if we are hoping for
>>>>>> cultural/technological overrides to systems that have evolved over "big
>>>>>> history" and billions of years. "Nothing gold can stay." But we live
>>>>>> here
>>>>>> and now. Why not keep trying? 😊
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best to one and all, -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.g
>>>>>> oogle.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2B
>>>>>> London-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-
>>>>>> 3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9R
>>>>>> SjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-
>>>>>> A&m=POmLosCA0tYJjs_9TZnQPfQXaSnQYSIwmixG5vwr8ak&s=bsOri84_
>>>>>> zBraMXIxHOygPISX5vuG2P9OjXS6VJ-nL8o&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.g
>>>>>> oogle.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2B
>>>>>> London-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-
>>>>>> 3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9R
>>>>>> SjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-
>>>>>> A&m=POmLosCA0tYJjs_9TZnQPfQXaSnQYSIwmixG5vwr8ak&s=bsOri84_
>>>>>> zBraMXIxHOygPISX5vuG2P9OjXS6VJ-nL8o&e=>
>>>>>>  N6A 2M3
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.g
>>>>>> oogle.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2B
>>>>>> London-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-
>>>>>> 3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9R
>>>>>> SjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-
>>>>>> A&m=POmLosCA0tYJjs_9TZnQPfQXaSnQYSIwmixG5vwr8ak&s=bsOri84_
>>>>>> zBraMXIxHOygPISX5vuG2P9OjXS6VJ-nL8o&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]
>>>>>> edu> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Friday, July 6, 2018 6:10 PM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I am a Hungarian Jew as you surmised. And an interesting group,
>>>>>> given
>>>>>> the creativity in both science and the arts. I haven't read Leo
>>>>>> Perutz, but
>>>>>> will have to do so, so thanks for the heads-up. And I was vaguely
>>>>>> acquainted with the theory that we are Khazars, having recently read
>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>> Byron's The Road to Oxiana, about the Middle-East in the 1930s. My
>>>>>> father's
>>>>>> father claimed to be able to trace his family in Hungary back to the
>>>>>> 1500s,
>>>>>> so what transpired between then and the Khazars in the 8th Century is
>>>>>> a big
>>>>>> gap. No doubt someone will do the genetics so we'll solve the mystery.
>>>>>> There was an interesting study from U Utah (Cochran G, Hardy J,
>>>>>> Harpending
>>>>>> H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J Biosoc Sci. 2006
>>>>>> Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that given Ashkenazi Jews
>>>>>> have 10 IQ pts higher than average, but also have excessive
>>>>>> neurodegenerative diseases, that the myelinization that promotes
>>>>>> intelligence taken to excess is pathologic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My interests in understanding the drivers of human intelligence run to
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> interest in the origins of the Holocaust, which I maintain was a
>>>>>> result of
>>>>>> ignorance and fear, so what ever we can do to inform is all to the
>>>>>> better..... John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 2:34 PM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fascinating!  As it turns out, Leo Perutz's 1933 novel "Saint Peter's
>>>>>> Snow" is an important one for me -- since it apparently describes the
>>>>>> invention of LSD 5-years before it was first "officially" synthesized
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> Sandoz in Basle (yes, as it turns out, I'm the "historian" of LSD.)
>>>>>> Ever
>>>>>> have the chance to read it . . . ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Saint-2DPeters-2DSnow-2DLeo-2DPerutz_dp_1611458862&d
>>>>>> =DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1
>>>>>> IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4p
>>>>>> IvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=jUCqzAP--Vu_4--9pqCh13JqvmXDTHfk
>>>>>> 0_hisiklZNw&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you likely know better than I, Hungarian Jews (if that's
>>>>>> appropriate in
>>>>>> your case), are a very special group.  To some extent, they might be
>>>>>> described as "Khazars" (i.e. neither Sephardic or Ashkenazi &c),
>>>>>> somehow
>>>>>> related to the Khazar Empire in Central Asia -- as written about by
>>>>>> Arthur
>>>>>> Koestler in his last novel "The Thirteenth Tribe" (1976).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Thirteenth-2DTribe-2DArthur-2DKoestler_dp_0945001428
>>>>>> &d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HP
>>>>>> o1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA
>>>>>> 4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=sJVEoiN5J576BZzOysp6BHoAOIue7v
>>>>>> FZb2mtgy1FefU&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some other Hungarian "Khazars" who I've crossed paths with are
>>>>>> Intel-founder Andy Grove (who I met, plus had many dealings with his
>>>>>> company) and atom-bomb inventor Leo Szilard (who I've deeply
>>>>>> researched).
>>>>>> Quite a story, which has recently resurfaced in various disputes about
>>>>>> Jewish *genetics* . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Khazars&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB
>>>>>> 9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz
>>>>>> 4-A&m=8gWMLyW-4S0F8shA4pIvFIhkqtYAHRv8FfknvF-8PBc&s=fJxVLwSI
>>>>>> maJW6ZBLP3YITakQcYy8zRSj5Hz1S7jJ2O0&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I expect that your interests have a great deal to do with your
>>>>>> early
>>>>>> experiences (as, indeed, have all of us).  There's no doubt that
>>>>>> "biography
>>>>>> matters" a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was born in Budapest, Hungary. My mother's family is from Prague, Cz
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> Budapest, Hungary. I am related to Max Perutz, the Nobel Laureate, and
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> Leopold Perutz, the novelist, on that side of my family. My father's
>>>>>> family
>>>>>> is from Gyngyos, Hungary. We emigrated to the US in 1948 through my
>>>>>> grandparents initiative in franking their NY congressman gain entry to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> US; we had originally had exit visas to go to Honduras. I had
>>>>>> grandparents
>>>>>> and great grandparents living in the States who had emigrated in the
>>>>>> 1930s.
>>>>>> I grew up on Long Island, New York, the product of an excellent formal
>>>>>> public educational system. I say 'formal' because I spent my weekends
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> Manhattan with my Viennese grandparents who took me to museums,
>>>>>> theater,
>>>>>> opera for my entire growing up years. We spoke Hungarian exclusively at
>>>>>> home; my maternal relatives spoke German, but I was not encouraged to
>>>>>> learn, I assume because of the 'stigma' of the post-WWII environment. I
>>>>>> attribute my insatiable and ecclectic curiosity and career in
>>>>>> biomedical
>>>>>> research to that overall experience. My son Daniel is a well-known
>>>>>> novelist
>>>>>> whose first novel, The Last Flight of Poxl West was about my maternal
>>>>>> family fleeing Nazi Germany.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 11:54 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have much work to do and I, for one, look forward to your
>>>>>> participation
>>>>>> in the upcoming discussions . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your Facebook post from Feb 1, 2017 says that you are an immigrant
>>>>>> from a
>>>>>> Communist country (along with assorted "political" remarks &c).  Would
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> care to tell us a bit about your early life . . . ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, I hope that we are 'kayaking' and not just 'yaking' which I don't
>>>>>>
>>>>>> think we are, but I liked the pun, so there.....again I will interject
>>>>>> within your last email:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> shit....You?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [The Editors at a couple of conventional Evolution journals have said
>>>>>> so
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> more civil language. And I just assume they're keeping their finger in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> dyke because there's more and more of us who think that Darwin was
>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>> As for my colleagues, they're either politely hear me out or turn a
>>>>>> deaf
>>>>>> ear. I gave my homily to a group of MDs and PhDs who do developmental
>>>>>> biology a few years back and a friend was sitting in the audience, so I
>>>>>> asked him what he thought of the lecture. His PC answer was that what
>>>>>> he
>>>>>> heard was some saying 'brilliant', others saying 'huh?'. But I guess I
>>>>>> hang
>>>>>> my hat/head on the fact that I have published more than 80
>>>>>> peer-reviewed
>>>>>> articles, which counts for something, at least in the realm of grant
>>>>>> funding and patenting. And the fact that the model is predictive for
>>>>>> dogmas
>>>>>> in biology gives me courage to keep on keeping on. One of my first
>>>>>> research
>>>>>> Fellows back in the day challenged me to come up with some physiologic
>>>>>> trait that would be predicted by the cell-molecular approach,
>>>>>> particularly
>>>>>> as it pertains to the evolution of endothermy. So we came up with the
>>>>>> attached hypothesis as to why we males carry our testes on the outside
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> our bodies fyi.....that's never been explained before. Not even close.
>>>>>> It's
>>>>>> testable and refutable....]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work.  From what I can
>>>>>> tell,
>>>>>> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
>>>>>> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
>>>>>> quite conventional).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Well actually I just use cell biology as a tool. My formal training
>>>>>> is in
>>>>>> endocrinology/reproductive endocrinology, and my career as a funded
>>>>>> investigator has been as a lung biologists. Besides which, I am a PhD,
>>>>>> which I think gives me license to 'philosophize'. Lovelock and Margulis
>>>>>> were geochemist and biologist, so why did they have license to
>>>>>> hypothesize
>>>>>> Gaia? Because, just like why dogs lick their genitals, because they
>>>>>> could]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
>>>>>> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life
>>>>>> for a
>>>>>> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century.
>>>>>> My
>>>>>> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> interested in how that plays with your colleagues.  Nothing in the
>>>>>> universe
>>>>>> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> instance.  Maybe biology never made that leap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I like Schrodinger's concept of negentropy, as expressed in What is
>>>>>> Life?
>>>>>> 1944. And the Reviewers seem to be OK with it too. As for my science
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> old fashioned, you might have said the same about Gallileo riffing on
>>>>>> Copernicus. In point of fact, we do cutting-edge epigenetic research
>>>>>> in my
>>>>>> lab, funded by the NIH, so no, my science is anything by old fashioned.
>>>>>> I've just looked at the data from a different perspective, kinda like
>>>>>> Einstein, travelling in tandem with a lightbeam. I know that the
>>>>>> physicists
>>>>>> think that all is probability, but Einstein said that G_d does not play
>>>>>> dice with the Universe......so he must have thought that some aspects
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> physics were deterministic, like the mass of a neutron, for example.
>>>>>> Besides which, if ever get more widely recognized, I maintain that we
>>>>>> got
>>>>>> the how and why of our existence backwards, and since our system of
>>>>>> logic
>>>>>> is founded on our sense of self to a large degree, perhaps that's why
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> keep going through ups and downs as a society.......I maintain that the
>>>>>> closer we get to the Implicate Order, the smoother the 'ride' will be.
>>>>>> As
>>>>>> for biology never making he leap to a probabilistic perspective, that's
>>>>>> been tried by many (LL Whyte, Prigogine, Polanyi, Wilson) but they
>>>>>> make a
>>>>>> systematic error in seeing life as a 'snapshot', or synchronically,
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> fact evolution is diachronic (see attached). Seen across space-time
>>>>>> life
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> both deterministic and probabilistic depending upon what aspect of the
>>>>>> process is being examined. Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to
>>>>>> biology,
>>>>>> but it has to be applied at the cellular-molecular level from the
>>>>>> origin,
>>>>>> not 1:1 realtime. The example I use is that of the effect of gravity,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> refers all the way back to the origin of life as unicells. When the
>>>>>> cell
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> dissociated from gravity experimentally the ability to communicate with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> environment is lost, i.e. the cell is comatose]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in
>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field.  He is so outrageous
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Well and my frustration with Gregg is that in his TOK the joints
>>>>>> between
>>>>>> the levels are mechanistic, if only he would see it as I do......he
>>>>>> sort
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> does in that he refers to it as metaphysics, but it's not philosophy
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> you(I) apply the cellular-molecular template.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present --
>>>>>> albeit
>>>>>> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Yes, largely because the psychologist credo is that you can just talk
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> problems away, but I maintain that that's just kicking the can down the
>>>>>> proverbial road. In reality, if we were to embrace a novel way of
>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>> about the how and why of our existence, particularly our mortality,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> addressed in my last give and take, that we would be able to move
>>>>>> forward,
>>>>>> but that's a 'bridge too far' for Gregg. When I get into this head
>>>>>> space I
>>>>>> think of Heliocentrism and The Enightenment.......we've had a reboot
>>>>>> before
>>>>>> by displacing our 'home' from the center of the Solar System. Now I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> we need to do the same for ourselves by displacing ourselves from the
>>>>>> center of the Biosphere in order to be better stewards of ourselves,
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> organisms, and the planet]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its
>>>>>> *determinism*,
>>>>>> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions?  I sorta doubt it but
>>>>>> look
>>>>>> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
>>>>>> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I'm talking about a fundamental change in human logic.....I don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that digitizing affects that...it just exacerbates the
>>>>>> underlying/overarching problem IMHO. The problem with the Titanic was
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the hull design, not the arrangement of the deck chairs]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that).  My
>>>>>> guess is
>>>>>> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> heard.  No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
>>>>>> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Dark Ages is a convention....and I don't appreciate the ad hominem
>>>>>> stuff.
>>>>>> I happen to know plenty about history, so I don't think that's my
>>>>>> problem]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
>>>>>> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list.  I appreciate that
>>>>>> -- in
>>>>>> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
>>>>>> reasonable.  However, the question whether that "context" is itself
>>>>>> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [To think that technology would affect human kind at the level I am
>>>>>> going
>>>>>> to is, in my opinion, ludicrous, and misses the whole point. I don't
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that, for example, the invention of the wheel altered the trajectory of
>>>>>> human consciousness, it merely affecting the rate of change]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
>>>>>> would also be an interesting topic to discuss.  Georg Cantor was told
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> there is no "actual infinite" in this life.  I would tend to agree.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [1/0 ?]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.P.S.  No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can
>>>>>> *ever*
>>>>>> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again
>>>>>> pointing to
>>>>>> your old-time PRINT approach to these things.  "Logical positivism" was
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
>>>>>> science" clearly failed.  It won't work for social science, in
>>>>>> particular,
>>>>>> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> approaches will be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [So picture yourself saying that science will never explain everything
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> 14th Century Florence, and then you are told that the world is
>>>>>> round......does your statement still apply? I don't think so, but I
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> want to sound dogmatic, just open minded and forward thinking]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I honestly don't think you see what it is that I am saying with regard
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> my perspective. The idea, for example that we misconstrue
>>>>>> consciousness as
>>>>>> brain/mind rather than as our sense of being aware of our being
>>>>>> because of
>>>>>> the iterative process of internalizing the external environment and
>>>>>> making
>>>>>> it useful physiologically, the aggregate of that being Consciousness.
>>>>>> That
>>>>>> alone is a game changer to my way of thinking......Perhaps it would
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> cite my co-author Bill Miller, who says that the concept we are
>>>>>> promoting
>>>>>> is 'like turning your sock inside out'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have had some preeminent people tell me that I am basically full of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> shit....You?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm mostly interested in "outlying thinkers," so what would matter is
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> your *cell biology* colleagues think of your work.  From what I can
>>>>>> tell,
>>>>>> you don't profess any particular "expertise" outside of that area -- so
>>>>>> speculations about "Gaia" &c are just that (and, from what I can tell,
>>>>>> quite conventional).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> By using terms like "entropy," you have placed yourself in an earlier
>>>>>> *paradigm* (i.e. the PRINT world), which hasn't dominated human life
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> long time, having been superseded by ELECTRICITY in the 19th-century.
>>>>>> My
>>>>>> guess is that your science is "old-fashioned" in that respect and I'd
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> interested in how that plays with your colleagues.  Nothing in the
>>>>>> universe
>>>>>> is "deterministic" (i.e. *efficient* causality) anymore for physicists,
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> instance.  Maybe biology never made that leap.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg, on the other hand, professes expertise in Psychology and, in
>>>>>> fact,
>>>>>> is explicitly trying to upend that entire field.  He is so outrageous
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> he claims that he has "solved the problem of Psychology" . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a different kind of "outsider" from the sort you present --
>>>>>> albeit
>>>>>> no doubt the basis for friendship and collaboration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is your 16th/17th-century paradigmatic approach, with its
>>>>>> *determinism*,
>>>>>> likely to come back under DIGITAL conditions?  I sorta doubt it but
>>>>>> look
>>>>>> forward to exploring that possibility once Gregg returns and we pick up
>>>>>> some of the underlying issues . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. The "Dark Ages" is a slander (and a stupid one at that).  My guess
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> that you didn't mean to insult anyone but are just repeating what you
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> heard.  No offense but until you know more about history, it might make
>>>>>> sense to "curb your enthusiasm."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S. The relationship between culture and technology (indeed, also
>>>>>> psychology) remains to be discussed on this list.  I appreciate that --
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the context of your understanding of *causality* -- "facilitate" seems
>>>>>> reasonable.  However, the question whether that "context" is itself
>>>>>> reasonable remains to be seen, as we will discuss over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.S. The question of whether *anything* is "infinite" in this world
>>>>>> would also be an interesting topic to discuss.  Georg Cantor was told
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> uncertain terms by Cardinal Franzelin, who he deliberately sought out,
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> there is no "actual infinite" in this life.  I would tend to agree.
>>>>>> The
>>>>>> notion of an "actual infinite" is, of course, a theological question,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> requires some expertise in that area to even discuss competently.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.P.S.  No one believes (or should believe) that "science" can
>>>>>> *ever*
>>>>>> explain everything (even asymptotically) anymore -- once again pointing
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> your old-time PRINT approach to these things.  "Logical positivism" was
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> refuge of *print* under *electric* conditions and its attempt to "unify
>>>>>> science" clearly failed.  It won't work for social science, in
>>>>>> particular,
>>>>>> so, to the extent we're talking Psychology hereabouts, I suspect that
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> approaches will be required.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark: I will attempt to navigate through your last reply by
>>>>>> interjecting
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> brackets....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
>>>>>> highest-level
>>>>>> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
>>>>>> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
>>>>>> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I have a different take on culture, having interpolated Niche
>>>>>> Construction
>>>>>> into the unicell (Torday JS. The Cell as the First Niche Construction.
>>>>>> Biology (Basel). 2016 Apr 28;5(2).), offering the opportunity to then
>>>>>> integrate organisms within niches as ecologies, which scales all the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> from the unicell to Gaia. Along the way, culture is a manifestation of
>>>>>> exponential niche construction, or anthropomorphized
>>>>>> institutions......so
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> would suggest that technological inventions 'facilitated' culture, all
>>>>>> due
>>>>>> respect. As for why physiologic stress is caused, perpetual
>>>>>> environmental
>>>>>> change is a Given; life must change accordingly or become extinct. In
>>>>>> actuality, the ability of life to sense change in the environment,
>>>>>> external
>>>>>> and internal alike using homeostasis as its 'feelers' is how the
>>>>>> cell(s)
>>>>>> know that change has occurred, and because they are servoed to the
>>>>>> environment, equipped with the capacity to change as I had described
>>>>>> earlier, the organism is constantly in flux, but trying to maintain the
>>>>>> equipoise that it generated at its origin as its 'Garden of
>>>>>> Eden'.......like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland, running as fast
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> she can to remain at rest, like a catalyst mediating a chemical
>>>>>> reaction
>>>>>> (literally), or the eternal Burning Bush, never burning up ]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
>>>>>> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
>>>>>> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
>>>>>> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Len Hayflick, a preeminent cell biologist has stated that the amount
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> bioenergetics within the cell is finite (Hayflick L. Entropy explains
>>>>>> aging, genetic determinism explains longevity, and undefined
>>>>>> terminology
>>>>>> explains misunderstanding both. PLoS Genet. 2007 Dec;3(12):e220). But
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> think that our lives are finite is missing the big picture point of
>>>>>> epigenetics. We are actually immortalized by being the 'vehicles' for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> transit of environmental information to the organism so that it can
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> the existential decision to either remain the same or change in sync
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the environment. I have also considered the possibility that because
>>>>>> our
>>>>>> microbiome is 70-90% of our holobiont being, that unless we are
>>>>>> cremated
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> buried in a concrete crypt, our microbiome goes back to the earth when
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> are buried, back into the aquifer, ingested by plants and animals and
>>>>>> 'reincarnated' in others who drink and eat us. There's experimental
>>>>>> evidence, for example, that when we are buried our microbiome leaves a
>>>>>> 'footprint' called the necrobiome, indicating that our microbiome
>>>>>> remains
>>>>>> intact, so we live on through our microbiome!]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
>>>>>> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today
>>>>>> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
>>>>>> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.
>>>>>> Indeed,
>>>>>> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
>>>>>> (without
>>>>>> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
>>>>>> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [In my reduction of biology/evolution I came to the realization that a)
>>>>>> there are First Principles of Physiology- negentropy, chemiosmosis and
>>>>>> homeostasis- and that the first two principles are deterministic,
>>>>>> whereas
>>>>>> homeostasis is probabilistic, conferring Free Will because we are free
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be any of a number of states of being depending upon which one provides
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> least 'friction', i.e. allows for the cell to remain at equipoise. The
>>>>>> atom
>>>>>> is similarly in homeostatic balance, the proton and electron balancing
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> another. But based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle, the first three
>>>>>> values
>>>>>> for electron spin are deterministic, whereas the fourth is time-based
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> probabilistic. So both the animate and inanimate are both deterministic
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> probabilistic. I think that in both cases the probabilistic component
>>>>>> accommodates Heisenberg, but in the case of life, it resolves the
>>>>>> duality
>>>>>> in an on-going manner as evolution.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
>>>>>> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
>>>>>> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
>>>>>> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
>>>>>> means anymore.  This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four
>>>>>> causes"
>>>>>> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture."  And, to do
>>>>>> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [All due respect, but I have suggested to Gregg that the 'joints' in
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> TOK are the mechanisms that interconnect the 'levels', so there is a
>>>>>> causal
>>>>>> explanation IMHO.....is this reasonable to your way of thinking....not
>>>>>> trying to be a d___k about it because I have interjected a novel way of
>>>>>> thinking about the nature of life that could re-establish causation,
>>>>>> alleviating the angst of the probabilistic 'Cosmic Chill', supplanting
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> with causal "Cosmic Thrill' of knowing that we are stardust, a la
>>>>>> Sagan.]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
>>>>>> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Am I helping? or just moving the deck chairs? For me, the cell's eye
>>>>>> view
>>>>>> is enabling, but that's just me]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
>>>>>> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
>>>>>> &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
>>>>>> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
>>>>>> technologies,
>>>>>> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These "dimensions"
>>>>>> require
>>>>>> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I would agree that civilization is a higher level than culture,
>>>>>> particularly if it further facilitates the ability of Man to 'evolve'
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the face of environmental change as the 'rule of thumb'. Of course I
>>>>>> hate
>>>>>> that aphorism because as you probably know, it comes from the king of
>>>>>> England ruling that you could only beat your wife with a rod no thicker
>>>>>> than your thumb]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the
>>>>>> Bible.
>>>>>> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is simply no
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
>>>>>> "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to understand
>>>>>> cell-cell
>>>>>> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story.  I began
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to
>>>>>> University
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "Old Testament."  I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
>>>>>> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
>>>>>> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
>>>>>> than they were.  In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I personally find religion to be the mother of all 'just so stories',
>>>>>> particularly since stumbling on to the realization that life originated
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> an ambiguity and deception is the way we cope with that ambiguity (I
>>>>>> know,
>>>>>> I'm repeating myself, but it bears repeating IMHO] In my head, there is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> process by which we move further from belief and closer to knowledge
>>>>>> using
>>>>>> science as the leverage. BTW I don't think we'll ever get to the
>>>>>> Implicate
>>>>>> because it is an asymptote, but its the journey, not the destination
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> counts]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
>>>>>> over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already
>>>>>> living
>>>>>> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age."  As
>>>>>> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
>>>>>> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
>>>>>> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture"
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the one we grew up in.  Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> that happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [I'm reminded of the joke about the drunk at the end of the bar who
>>>>>> yells
>>>>>> out 'All lawyers are assholes', and a guy at the other end of the bar
>>>>>> yells
>>>>>> back 'I resent that remark. It is an insult to us assholes]. In that
>>>>>> vein,
>>>>>> I understand how civilization might default back to religion as we did
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the Dark Ages, but I am more in favor of recognizing our fundamental
>>>>>> relationship with the physical world, and that what we call G_d is the
>>>>>> Singularity, which is a secular idea that overarches Original
>>>>>> Sin......I
>>>>>> hate that precept because it leads to a fear-based worldview like that
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the Church or Communism. We know scientifically that fear literally
>>>>>> breeds
>>>>>> fear....that stress causes elevated cortisol in the mother, which gives
>>>>>> rise to depression in the offspring, which then experiences elevated
>>>>>> cortisol, etc etc etc. That downward spiral kills hope and creativity,
>>>>>> fostering negative thinking and fear. So I would like to think that in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> post-secular world we have the option of understanding our inner
>>>>>> workings
>>>>>> as a continuum with the Cosmos, and that the gift of life is in our
>>>>>> ability
>>>>>> to circumvent the Laws of Physics in order to invent and problem
>>>>>> solve......that is the true nature of Man, if only we are open to what
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> already know, and can exploit for the betterment of our species,
>>>>>> unctiousness aside]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We makin' any headway? Or am I just spinin' my wheels? I ask because I
>>>>>> see
>>>>>> the light at the end of the tunnel......but it's useless without others
>>>>>> willing to discuss a Plan C.....Plan A being Creationism, Plan B being
>>>>>> Darwinism....I don't think that in general people are considered
>>>>>> alternatives to A or B, assuming that we know all we know, and that
>>>>>> there's
>>>>>> nothing else, which is unfortunate. I have had some preeminent people
>>>>>> tell
>>>>>> me that I am basically full of shit....You?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 5:24 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks!  In Gregg's "dimensions of complexity" hierarchy the
>>>>>> highest-level
>>>>>> is "culture" -- which I'm suggesting is *caused* by our technological
>>>>>> inventions (acting as forms) -- so I suspect that the topic of
>>>>>> "physiological stress" and why it is caused now needs to be explored.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you say "caused by the breakdown in cell-cell communication as a
>>>>>> result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is finite" you seem to be
>>>>>> alluding to what is called *efficient* causality -- which is the one
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> associated with "positive" science originating in the paradigm from the
>>>>>> 16th/17th-century (also where "energy" was primary) -- right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that paradigm was "overthrown" in the 19th/20th-century (and, yes,
>>>>>> that's why Kuhn wrote his 1962 "Scientific Revolutions" book).  Today
>>>>>> science has no positive grasp on causality, instead substituting
>>>>>> "probability," which comes with its own train-load of problems.
>>>>>> Indeed,
>>>>>> one of the pioneering AI researchers, Judea Pearl, has been trying
>>>>>> (without
>>>>>> much luck) to somehow rescue a sense of "cause," since its absence is
>>>>>> seriously getting in the way of building human-like robots . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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=a_atcpO9RlELX5il
>>>>>> A4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=Emly2WgLo3WjMuPtYW9EV87r_u5PhT
>>>>>> wjCgKcq0iqYEY&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've suggested (in private email) to Gregg that he invented "dimensions
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> complexity" (which he admits doesn't exist in "complexity science") to
>>>>>> build his ToK for *exactly* this reason: we don't know what "causality"
>>>>>> means anymore.  This requires us to go-back-to Aristotle's "four
>>>>>> causes"
>>>>>> and to sort through how they function in today's "culture."  And, to do
>>>>>> that, we will need to use McLuhan to get there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Four-5Fcauses&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=-
>>>>>> 7U_EBV5O7yj1-5bSUIawFTpdgmSgwl0Tz8tNYTCX84&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Much work to be done . . . <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Some would suggest that there is a "higher-level" than culture and
>>>>>> call it "civilization" -- as written about extensively by Arnold Toynee
>>>>>> &al.  For what it's worth, at my Center, we have termed the top-level
>>>>>> "spheres" to reflect the global changes caused by *electric*
>>>>>> technologies,
>>>>>> beginning with the Telegraph in the mid-1800s.  These "dimensions"
>>>>>> require
>>>>>> an appropriate *metaphysics* which is grounded in a thorough retrieval
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> what we once understood about causes -- all four of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S. In the West (as civilization or sphere), the ur-text is the
>>>>>> Bible.
>>>>>> And in the East, it is the Yijing (aka "I Ching").  There is simply no
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> to think about this level of *organization* without a comprehensive
>>>>>> "education" in these texts.  No, this is not needed to understand
>>>>>> cell-cell
>>>>>> communication but, as we know, that's not the full ToK story.  I began
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> study of the Bible in 1970 (at the age of 22), when I went to
>>>>>> University
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Chicago Divinity School (looking for a draft deferment), majoring in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "Old Testament."  I remember once floating in a salt-water pool in
>>>>>> Tiberias, Israel, listening to jokes about how "Jesus got nailed on his
>>>>>> boards," with some Jewish friends who declared that I was "more Jewish"
>>>>>> than they were.  In fact, I'm Catholic but my children *are* Jewish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.P.S. The "secularization" that dominated our 20th-century lives is
>>>>>> over.  Kaput!  The new *digital* paradigm in which we have already
>>>>>> living
>>>>>> for 20+ years could be summarized by "Less work: More religion." This
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> what Jurgen Habermas, yes, a Marxist, calls the "Post-secular Age."  As
>>>>>> work shifts to the robots and people wind-up with a massive increase in
>>>>>> their "leisure," many of them will move to lives of religious activity,
>>>>>> including "monasteries" and a huge increase in "contemplation" -- all
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> which means that we are already living in a very different "culture"
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> the one we grew up in.  Yes, it will be a challenge for ToK to explain
>>>>>> why
>>>>>> that happened.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Awareness-2DWhat-2DMissing-2DReason-2DPost-2Dsecular
>>>>>> _dp_0745647219&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>>>>> a_atcpO9RlELX5ilA4Jj-CdDwoFgkCQwEiLcWwdTXCg&s=oKSiJicoDfZ5DB
>>>>>> i-buQPxCI8ws_F7TIZx7iOCi8mUe4&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In response, I am not very familiar with scripture, so not well versed
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the Book of Revelation......a reflection of my poor education?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for  --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
>>>>>> *destroying* "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its
>>>>>> relationship to "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for
>>>>>> instance) . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I understand your question correctly, my conceptualization of
>>>>>> evolution
>>>>>> is based on cell-cell communication as the basis for development and
>>>>>> phylogeny mediated by soluble growth factors and their eponymous
>>>>>> receptors. Such interactions are known to determine the patterns of
>>>>>> growth
>>>>>> and differentiation that occur during embryogenesis, culminating in
>>>>>> homeostasis at the time of birth, and subsequently during the life
>>>>>> cycle
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> the organism. Death/senescence is caused by the breakdown in cell-cell
>>>>>> communication as a result of the loss of bioenergetics, which is
>>>>>> finite.
>>>>>> Mutations occur when the organism is under physiologic stress, causing
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> production of Radical Oxygen Species due to shear stress to the walls
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> the capilllaries.....such Radical Oxygen Species are known to cause
>>>>>> gene
>>>>>> mutations and duplications. But it should be borne in mind that those
>>>>>> genetic changes are occurring within the context and confines of the
>>>>>> homeostatic regulation of the cell-cell interactions. The cells will
>>>>>> remodel themselves until a new homeostatic set point is reached,
>>>>>> constituting what we
>>>>>> think of as evolution. So if evolution is thought of as 'progress',
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> how it has transpired...perhaps you could find an explanation for
>>>>>> communism
>>>>>> based on this mechanism of evolution. As for cancer based on the same
>>>>>> mechanism, if the cell-cell interactions cannot re-establish
>>>>>> homeostasis,
>>>>>> one of the cells will proliferate to fill form a 'new' organism in
>>>>>> order
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> fulfill its mission of homeostasis within the organismic construct. I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> attached
>>>>>> paper of us on the topic fyi.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was off kayaking (and eating lobster salad at Pop's restaurant)
>>>>>> yesterday, so I'll take your comments one-at-a-time (the last of
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> in a private email).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #1 "Communism" has nothing to do with "cooperation."  Instead, it was
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> expression of the Protestant *evangelical* expectation of an
>>>>>> Armageddon
>>>>>> that would end human biology once-and-for-all.  Marx was a hired-gun
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> F.
>>>>>> Engels (paid for by his father's factory), who was actually
>>>>>> responsible
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> all this nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Engels was raised in Barmen, Germany, where his youthful experiences
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> of itinerant preachers raising the roof with "Repent the End is Near"
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> whereas Marx came from Trier, where he identified with the local
>>>>>> farmers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Communism" is a fundamental *rejection* of "equipose" and instead an
>>>>>> attempt to end this world with a "material" version of the 2nd
>>>>>> Coming.
>>>>>> How
>>>>>> familiar are you with the Book of Revelation . . . ??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Furthermore, what we would now call "human" didn't exist until
>>>>>> roughly
>>>>>> 500BC (and then only in a few places), or what Karl Jaspers called
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> "Axial Age."  Hunter Gatherers were the same species but not at all
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same "phenotype" that is today encountered by anyone who understood
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> term.  This is the topic of Jaynes and Donald, which I will wait for
>>>>>> Greg
>>>>>> to return to elaborate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>>>> pedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>>>>>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>>>>>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=k-1
>>>>>> yHhOxtVZDQg50L5F8zha5fvPEThxP1XM1qLGmLwA&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #2 As an "outlying thinker," you will need to learn about Leibniz.
>>>>>> All
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> due time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Leibniz-2DIntellectual-2DMaria-2DRosa-2DAntognazza_
>>>>>> dp_1107627613&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=
>>>>>> GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=aSiHYiwqsVcVrV
>>>>>> R5hyEV7NBzagdNR_GJoX2mOvp4VEQ&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #3 Without McLuhan, there is no "up-to-date" regarding technology.
>>>>>> Also
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> topic for future elaboration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>>>> zon.com_Understanding-2DMedia-2DExtensions-2DMarshall-
>>>>>> 2DMcLuhan_dp_1584230738&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4
>>>>>> uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgj
>>>>>> O2gOz4-A&m=GHCgWRTvDK4nxxOO9mUcZOXeKqbTrkLmHYR2JQzUcdQ&s=
>>>>>> QWaAiedWWRHK_bXLzdPPeeVtFOcVHHiFpuDwZGwgB1k&e=
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --> What you didn't address is the biological process for
>>>>>> *destroying*
>>>>>> "equipose" (i.e. "progress," "communism" &c) and its relationship to
>>>>>> "mutation" (and/or other processes, like cancer, for instance) . . .
>>>>>> !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .....Oh, and no, I have not read Leibnitz, just little snippets here
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> there.....to be honest, as long as the thinking is related to biology
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> Lego Blocks (descriptive) it is unfortunately immaterial to my way
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> thinking because it reflects the logical construct being used......I
>>>>>> liken
>>>>>>  it to the difference between Newtonian Gravity theory v
>>>>>> Einsteinian,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> former describing the attraction of bodies, the latter that gravity
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> due
>>>>>> to the distortion of space-time. Like Twain said,“The difference
>>>>>> between
>>>>>> the *almost right* word and the *right* word is really a large
>>>>>> matter.
>>>>>> ’tis
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”😀
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 6:26 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, nice to meet a true 'son of Madison'. I only knew transients
>>>>>> from
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Michigan State and University of Chicago in my brief post-doctoral
>>>>>>
>>>>>> stint. I
>>>>>> worked with Jack Gorski, the biochemist who discovered the estrogen
>>>>>> receptor.......my work on the effect of cortisol on lung
>>>>>> development
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> buoyed by such science for the next 20 years. Madison was an
>>>>>> interesting
>>>>>> transition from my MSc/PhD in Experimental Medicine, taught by the
>>>>>> discoverers of cortisol, aldosterone and prolactin, and Hans Selye,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> clinician-scientist who coined the term 'stress' while at McGill, a
>>>>>> bastion
>>>>>> of Eurocentnrism, back to the US en route to Harvard (from which I
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> thrown out after 15 years of hard labor), which may explain my own
>>>>>> worldview academically, which is quite eclectic, but in a very
>>>>>> different
>>>>>> way from yours. I have spent 50+ years doing the science of the
>>>>>> establishment, chasing my tail studying physiologic mechanisms and
>>>>>> chasing
>>>>>> my intellectual tail, always in the hope of 'linearizing' the story
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> latching on to a tale that would take me from the superficial and
>>>>>> mundane
>>>>>> to the fundamental......what else would I have expected, given
>>>>>> that a
>>>>>> simple molecule like cortisol could flip a switch and save life at
>>>>>> its
>>>>>> inception- the implementation of cortisol for prevention of the
>>>>>> death
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> preterm infants was profoundly inspiring, to this day. But as I had
>>>>>> said,
>>>>>> it made no 'logical' sense that hormones would or should have
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> do with lungs....but now it makes all the sense in the world; I
>>>>>> just
>>>>>> hadda
>>>>>> turn the whole process around 180 degrees, at least for my own
>>>>>> 'sanity'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So to your question about the biological relevance of Communism, I
>>>>>> start
>>>>>> with the premise that multicellular organisms evolved through
>>>>>> metabolic
>>>>>> cooperativity, so 'from each according to their abilities, to each
>>>>>> according to their needs' makes sense as an operational principle.
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> that all fell apart in the transition from Hunter Gatherers to
>>>>>> agriculture
>>>>>> and ownership of land, acting as a driver for human avarice and
>>>>>> greed
>>>>>> instead of cooperativity. There is a biological underpinning to
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> transition from hunting/gathering to agriculture due to the ready
>>>>>> source
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> food year round increasing subcutaneous fat, producing the hormone
>>>>>> leptin,
>>>>>> which promotes the 'arborization' of the brain, the formation of
>>>>>> ever-increasing numbers of synapses. That mechanism usurped the
>>>>>> gut-brain
>>>>>> mechanism by which food would distend the gut, increasing leptin
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> ghrelin production by the gut, affecting brain development along a
>>>>>> different trajectory from the steady infusion of leptin provided by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> fat
>>>>>> depot. There are those who say that the dominance of the CNS over
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> gut
>>>>>> brain has been our undoing, and I think that's correct in that the
>>>>>> CNS
>>>>>> mechanism tends to lend itself to neuroticisms that the gut-brain
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> due to the abstractions of the CNS vs the pragmatism of the gut, if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> my drift. Along these lines, there was an interesting paper
>>>>>> (Cochran
>>>>>> G,
>>>>>> Hardy J, Harpending H. Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence. J
>>>>>> Biosoc
>>>>>> Sci. 2006 Sep;38(5):659-93) the hypothesis of which was that
>>>>>> Ashkenazi
>>>>>> Jews
>>>>>> have higher IQs, but an excess of neurodegenerative diseases, and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> this
>>>>>> is an example of balancing selection, too much of a good thing
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> bad
>>>>>> thing, myelinization of neurons increasing IQ but too much leading
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> pathology.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I digress. Not to 'chest beat' too much on my part, but I find
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> energizing in my 8th decade to think that a) maybe we got it wrong,
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> b)
>>>>>> how can we 'fix' it, given what we're doing to ourselves and our
>>>>>> planet.
>>>>>> As
>>>>>> I had said previously, my sense is that what I have stumbled onto
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> realization that what we think of as evolution are all
>>>>>> epiphenomena........the so-called complexity of life is actually a
>>>>>> by-product of the core mission of life, to maintain and sustain its
>>>>>> originating ability to remain at equipoise, like the Red Queen,
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> sounds counterintuitive because we are using the wrong intuition.
>>>>>> BTW,
>>>>>> my
>>>>>> idea that Quantum Mechanics is highly relevant to biology, but
>>>>>> hasn't
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> integrated with it for lack of the right perspective, i.e. that the
>>>>>> Cosmos
>>>>>> and biology emerged from the same Singularity/Big Bang, so that's
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> in which Pauli, Heisenberg, non-localization, coherence have to be
>>>>>> viewed
>>>>>> biologically......then it works, at least in my simplistic way of
>>>>>> understanding those two domains. And that sits at the core of the
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> in the sense that our system of logic is founded on the way in
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> understand how and why we exist; given that, if we got it
>>>>>> backwards,
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> course we would have inherent problems in our personal comportment
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> of the societies that we constitute. We're still stuck with
>>>>>> Descartes
>>>>>> (witness Hameroff and Penrose fixated on microtubules in the brain,
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> there are microtubules in the viscera too!) and Michaelangelo's
>>>>>> Vitruvian
>>>>>> Man when we should be devising ways of reintegrating our big brains
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> more holistically win-win way. Have you read Jeremy Rifkin's "The
>>>>>> Empathic
>>>>>> Civilization". In it he makes this same plea, if only.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, hubris and braggadocio aside, what I have offered is a
>>>>>> step-wise,
>>>>>> scientifically-based means of devconvoluting our own evolution in a
>>>>>> way
>>>>>> that is 'testable and refutable', linking physics and biology
>>>>>> together
>>>>>> mechanistically for the first time. That relationship is
>>>>>> buildable- I
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> suggested merging the Elemental Periodic Table with a Periodic
>>>>>> Table
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Biology to form an algorithm for all of the natural
>>>>>> sciences....what
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> dynamic search engine that would be. I just have to figure out how
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> mathematically express evolution....Work in Progress. But of
>>>>>> course I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> curious as to how all of this 'fits' with what makes the hair on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> of *your* neck stand up? Because CRISPER and AI aren't our
>>>>>> salvation,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> they're just more of the same ambiguity/deception paradigm as far
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>> concerned......John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Mark Stahlman <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is *all* very exciting -- as in skin-tingly, even more than
>>>>>>
>>>>>> head-shaking (and, yes, mine was going up-down, not side-to-side)
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> .
>>>>>> <g>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I grew up in Madison, where both of my parents were on the UW
>>>>>> faculty.
>>>>>> Madison West then undergraduate 1966-70, followed by a brief stint
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> UofChicago Divinity School (for a rare deferment, when only
>>>>>> "ministers"
>>>>>> escaped the draft lottery), then back to Madison for a year in a
>>>>>> PhD
>>>>>> program in Molecular Biology, which was aborted by the collapse of
>>>>>> NSF-funding post-Vietnam.  Then I moved to NYC in 1972 and started
>>>>>> an
>>>>>> early
>>>>>> mini-computer software company (while playing "revolutionary" and
>>>>>> studying
>>>>>> Renaissance history &c) -- which was the basis of my later career
>>>>>> on
>>>>>> Wall
>>>>>> Street &c.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Genetics" seemed to me to be barking-up-the-wrong-tree with its
>>>>>> over-emphasis on DNA (and "information," trying to equate life to
>>>>>> computation) -- which meant I was looking for epi-genetics before
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> was
>>>>>> quite a thing yet.  Marshall McLuhan, as it turns out, is *all*
>>>>>> about
>>>>>> psycho-technological environments and our "adaptation" to them
>>>>>> (although,
>>>>>> for various reasons, he never elaborated a "psychology," which is
>>>>>> what
>>>>>> we
>>>>>> are now doing at the Center, with Aristotle's help.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suspect that what you mean by "consciousness" -- say at the
>>>>>> cellular-level -- is what Aristotle meant by the "soul" (aka
>>>>>> *entelechy*)
>>>>>> and what Leibniz meant by "monad."  Have you had a chance to look
>>>>>> at
>>>>>> Leibniz in this way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Throughout, this "being-at-work-staying-itself" (as Joe Sachs
>>>>>> translates
>>>>>> it), is in conflict with the urge to dissolve that "individuality"
>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>> Freud's "oceanic feeling" and the various "mysticisms") by trying
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> "be-something-else-destroying-yourself" which, in theological
>>>>>> terms,
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> called *gnosticism* (aka "self-deification.")  Btw, this was
>>>>>> Plato's
>>>>>> "World
>>>>>> Soul" and it was directly in conflict with Aristotle (yes, his
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> famous
>>>>>> student), much as Spinoza's *pantheism* was in conflict with
>>>>>> Leibniz.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This anti-balance, get-me-outta-here, clean-things-up urge (shown
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> Voltaire's satire of Leibniz's best-of-all-possible-worlds) --
>>>>>> giving
>>>>>> rise
>>>>>> to English "Puritanism," and thus the USA-as-proto-Eden (being
>>>>>> celebrated
>>>>>> today, as it was in Joni Mitchell's "Woodstock" lyric, "We gotta
>>>>>> get
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> to the Garden"), as well as "Communism" (via F. Engels and his
>>>>>> German
>>>>>> "puritanism"), speaking of ironies -- likely also has a
>>>>>> "biological"
>>>>>> explanation, which I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts about
>>>>>> (perhaps
>>>>>> linked to "mutation") . . . !!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Eventually, we'll also have to drag the Chinese into all this
>>>>>> and,
>>>>>> in particular, Daoism and the Yijing -- since, in the world today,
>>>>>> theirs
>>>>>> is a much more dynamic (and coherent) "sphere" than the West, in
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> *balance* we are describing is institutionalized in the Communist
>>>>>> Party
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> China (once again, noting the irony involved) -- all of which
>>>>>> developed
>>>>>> under *very* different psycho-technological conditions, with a
>>>>>> writing
>>>>>> system (i.e. the key to human self-aware "consciousness")
>>>>>> radically
>>>>>> unlike
>>>>>> our alphabetic one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.P.S All of this is what some call "outlying thinking" (without a
>>>>>> "home"
>>>>>> since the 13th-century).  I remember one day when I was
>>>>>> participating
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> National Academy of Science meeting when the chairman described me
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> group as a "very unusual scholar" (and, no, I wasn't invited
>>>>>> back).
>>>>>> Aristotle was Greek but he wasn't Athenian -- which meant that he
>>>>>> had
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> leave twice, his Lyceum school was outside the city-walls and in
>>>>>> 307BC
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> followers were banished, taking up in Rhodes and then largely
>>>>>> disappearing.  Likewise, Leibniz was almost completely expunged
>>>>>> after
>>>>>> his
>>>>>> death, then mocked by Voltaire (on behalf of Newton &al) and
>>>>>> slandered
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> Bertrand Russell.  There is something psycho-technological about
>>>>>> trying
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> "expel" the approach we are taking -- raising questions, as
>>>>>> Spengler
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> put it about "Man and Technics" as well as the current drive to
>>>>>> "merge"
>>>>>> humanity with the robots (aka, Ray Kurzweil &al's hoped-for
>>>>>> "Singularity.")
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Lonny, interesting comment about what I assume you mean is the
>>>>>> ability
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of individuals to 'fit' with their environment, cultural and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> otherwise. I
>>>>>>
>>>>>> think that becomes particularly relevant in the context of the
>>>>>> cell
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> first Niche Construction (see attached), or how the organism
>>>>>> integrates
>>>>>> with its environment as a function of its internal 'resources'
>>>>>> .......or
>>>>>> not. I am thinking of identical twins, for example, whom we know
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>> share the same epigenomes. Deconvoluting all of that would surely
>>>>>> help
>>>>>> us
>>>>>> better understand what makes us 'tick'. John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 7:24 PM, Lonny Meinecke <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi John and Mark,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am following your discussion with interest... thank you both
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> thread. I like the term endogenization. A curious thing about
>>>>>> each
>>>>>> individual carrying the environment around inside, is that the
>>>>>> common
>>>>>> world
>>>>>> is unlikely to be the same as each private version. These often
>>>>>> seem
>>>>>> substitutes for the external, when that unaffectable commons
>>>>>> becomes
>>>>>> untenable (or inaccessible) to the creatures that must somehow
>>>>>> dwell
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> anyway.
>>>>>> --Lonny
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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-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