Surface of the Universe is the current utmost zone of outward expansion.
Like the rubber surface of a balloon.
Best intentions
Alexander
Den sön 3 mars 2019 kl 22:48 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
> Dear Alex,
>
> *"But as expected the terms "emergence", "information", and even
> "singularity" now have so many different meanings that it has all become an
> incredibly complex mess to sort out. Physics and biology are even at
> massive verbal odds with each other."*
>
> I understand that emergence, information and singularity have many
> different meanings, but I have put them into a context in which they
> interrelate with one another mechanistically from a cellular perspective.
>
> *"**Physics and biology are even at massive verbal odds with each
> other."*
>
> I attribute this to descriptive biology, but once the latter is expressed
> mechanistically there is consilience, as I have shown for Quantum Mechanics
> and cell physiology.
>
> *"And why the laws of The Universe (or rather the habits of the Universe)
> do not apply to its surface can easily be shown by the Universe's own
> capacity to expand way faster than light."*
>
> I don't understand the use of the term 'surface'. Please advise. thank
> you....john
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 3, 2019 at 4:12 PM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear John
>>
>> Good. But as expected the terms "emergence", "information", and even
>> "singularity" now have so many different meanings that it has all become an
>> incredibly complex mess to sort out. Physics and biology are even at
>> massive verbal odds with each other. And why the laws of The Universe (or
>> rather the habits of the Universe) do not apply to its surface can easily
>> be shown by the Universe's own capacity to expand way faster than light.
>> This is why inflation theory makes sense in physics.
>>
>> Best intentions
>> Alexander
>>
>> Den fre 1 mars 2019 kl 17:22 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> My replies in [brackets]....
>>>
>>>
>>> *Can I just ask you how the terms "information" and "emergence" relate
>>> to your vision of cellular evolution?*
>>>
>>> [Emergence is the capacity of the biologic system to recall its
>>> evolutionary history and select some genetic trait that it had used
>>> previously in another context, what is referred to in the literature and by
>>> me and numerous others as serial pre-adaptations and by Stephen K Gould
>>> as Exaptations.]
>>> [Information is what is communicated between cells in cell-cell
>>> communication. It is the foundation of embryologic development,
>>> homeostasis, injury-repair and evolution alike]
>>>
>>> *And what exactly is this "equal and opposite reaction to The Big Bang"?
>>> In what way does this reaction exist within and in what way outside of our
>>> current Universe?*
>>>
>>> [I have exploited the serial pre-adaptation concept to reverse-engineer
>>> evolution successfully. That reduction landed me in the unicellular origin
>>> of life, raising the question as to what was pre-adaptation for the cell?
>>> Since the cell is a 'unity', as is the Singularity, I have hypothesized
>>> that the Singularity was/is the prototype for the cell as a
>>> self-referential, self-organizing structure. So then the question that
>>> arose was what was the pre-adaptation for homeostasis, which is just
>>> accepted as dogma. Moving forward from the Singularity to the Big Bang, it
>>> seemed reasonable to hypothesize that there was an 'equal and opposite
>>> reaction' to that explosion based on Newton's Third Law of Motion, and that
>>> homeostasis as a force would have provided the mechanism for forming matter
>>> from energy (E=mc2), as it does in both chemical reactions and in
>>> embryologic development alike. The energy of reaction is more evident in a
>>> chemical reaction, but it also is needed for embryogenesis, and appears as
>>> high energy phosphates that mediate cell-cell interactions (cyclic
>>> Adenosine Monophosphate, Inositol Phosphate, which mediate cell-cell
>>> signaling as what are called 'second messengers').
>>>
>>> But I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that I am not
>>> talking about Shannon Information Theory, which is characteristic of
>>> synchronic, descriptive Biology. The information is only the medium for
>>> communication, the latter being consistent with diachronic, across
>>> space-time evolution (because of the pre-adaptation aspect) as a
>>> *process*, analogous with cell-cell signaling, not a *thing*, like
>>> Information. Ultimately, the communication expressed in Biology is that
>>> which connects us to the Consciousness formed by the Cosmos.]
>>>
>>> *The laws of the Universe known by us from its inside do after all not
>>> apply to its surface (and beyond).*
>>>
>>> [I don't understand this comment....please explain so I can reply, or
>>> was I not supposed to?]
>>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 10:24 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Can I just ask you how the terms "information" and "emergence" relate
>>>> to your vision of cellular evolution?
>>>> And what exactly is this "equal and opposite reaction to The Big Bang"?
>>>> In what way does this reaction exist within and in what way outside of our
>>>> current Universe?
>>>> The laws of the Universe known by us from its inside do after all not
>>>> apply to its surface (and beyond).
>>>> Best intentions
>>>> Alexander
>>>>
>>>> Den fre 1 mars 2019 kl 16:02 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>>> Darwinian evolution is random mutation, Natural Selection, Descent
>>>>> with Modification and Survival of the Fittest. Cellular evolution is based
>>>>> on the self-engineering of the cell from lipids in water, cell-cell
>>>>> communication, endogenization of the environment, and most importantly,
>>>>> cellular cooperativity for metabolic drive. And all of those
>>>>> characteristics are controlled by homeostasis, initiated by the 'equal and
>>>>> opposite reaction' to the Big Bang. So my opponents start from now and work
>>>>> backwards to 'then', which is reasoning after the fact. I have rejiggered
>>>>> evolution by combining the mechanism of development with that of phylogeny
>>>>> as the 'short-term' and 'longterm' histories of the organism. By reversing
>>>>> that sequence of events as serial adaptations 180 degrees, one can now see
>>>>> evolution mechanistically from its origins. That perspective allows for an
>>>>> integrated way of understanding ethics/mores.... I hope that made sense. jst
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:27 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct!
>>>>>> However considering human beings as tribal creatures where
>>>>>> Civilization is the project of "becoming more adult than adult" and seeing
>>>>>> "trading with the stranger" as superior to "killing the stranger" due to
>>>>>> civilizational abundance rather than lack is a formidable foundation for
>>>>>> ethics. The Zoroastrians have practiced such an intertribal ethics for
>>>>>> 3,700 years (without moralism or commandments) and it is a worldview we can
>>>>>> learn tremendously from.
>>>>>> So how do you differentiate between Darwinian evolution and cellular
>>>>>> evolution? Maybe most important here is your definition of the stance of
>>>>>> your opponents.
>>>>>> Best intentions
>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Den fre 1 mars 2019 kl 14:07 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Alexander, thank you for your supportive words. Regarding the
>>>>>>> place for ethics in such a restructuring of thought about consciousness, I
>>>>>>> am in the process of writing a book Chapter on the subject. If you start
>>>>>>> from the premise that cellular cooperativity is the fundament of
>>>>>>> multicellularity, mediated by cell-cell communication, I think that
>>>>>>> ethics/morality is a contingency for that initiative. If there weren't such
>>>>>>> altruisim, multicellularity could not exist, if you get my drift. I think
>>>>>>> that seeing the origins of ethics/morality/altruism from this perspective
>>>>>>> helps to make the analysis more objective than to start after the fact with
>>>>>>> civilized society. In this vein, I remember a report on the news about a
>>>>>>> child falling into a Silver Back gorilla's cage, and everyone marveling
>>>>>>> that the animal protected the child. Or for that matter the Cardiologist at
>>>>>>> UCLA who initiated the Evolutionary Medicine Program, marveling at the
>>>>>>> commonalities between a monkey with a heart condition she ministered to at
>>>>>>> the LA Zoo and human cardiology.......so sad, but happy that she has used
>>>>>>> that experience to initiate the program merging evolution and medicine at
>>>>>>> my campus. Of course I'm the only one in the Program not espousing
>>>>>>> Darwinian evolution, but I have been able to make my point about cellular
>>>>>>> evolution nonetheless. I distinctly remember the philosopher Derek Parfit
>>>>>>> being profiled in the New Yorker on the subject of 'Being Good' several
>>>>>>> years ago. At one point he says that he cannot reconcile 'being good' with
>>>>>>> Darwin....right on!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:48 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dear John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have convinced me that it makes sense moving from
>>>>>>>> "self-consciousness" to "awareness" as the defining principle for
>>>>>>>> "consciousness" as such.
>>>>>>>> Especially as "the self" is only a later add-on or by-product to
>>>>>>>> "consciousness" as "awareness".
>>>>>>>> This also makes the concept of "attention" very interesting as the
>>>>>>>> word in its original French form means "awareness" multiplied with
>>>>>>>> "credibility".
>>>>>>>> And it is with "memory" that "consciousness" needs to develop a "a
>>>>>>>> sense of self" as the foundation for its valuation or hierarchization slash
>>>>>>>> credibility-attaching to the various fields, forces and objects surrounding
>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>> We can even build an ethics of consciousness based on this
>>>>>>>> assumption or shift. Well done, brother!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Big love
>>>>>>>> Alexander
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Den tors 28 feb. 2019 kl 21:14 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>> >:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Brent and TOKers, I am hypothesizing that consciousness is the net
>>>>>>>>> product of our physiology, which is vertically integrated from the
>>>>>>>>> unicellular state to what we think of as complex traits. In that vein, in
>>>>>>>>> the paper attached I proferred as an example the role of oxytocin in
>>>>>>>>> endothermy/homeothermy/warm-bloodedness. The pleiotropic effect of oxytocin
>>>>>>>>> on retinal cones and retinal epithelial cells would hypothetically account
>>>>>>>>> for seeing 'red' when looking at a strawberry, for example. It's the
>>>>>>>>> 'permutations and combinations' that form our physiology that cause such
>>>>>>>>> interrelationships due to our 'history', both short-term developmental and
>>>>>>>>> long-term phylogenetic. Hope that's helpful.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Brent Allsop <
>>>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tim Henriques asked:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “What is your operational definition of consciousness?”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John Torday replied with his definition / model of consciousness.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you google for solutions to the “hard problem” of
>>>>>>>>>> consciousness, you will find as many solutions as you care to take time to
>>>>>>>>>> look into.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I’m sure all these models have some utility, when it comes to
>>>>>>>>>> understanding various things about our consciousness, and our place in the
>>>>>>>>>> world. But what I don’t understand is, why not a one of them include
>>>>>>>>>> anything about the qualitative nature of consciousness? None of them give
>>>>>>>>>> us anything that might enable us to bridge Joseph Levine’s
>>>>>>>>>> “Explanatory Gap”
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Explanatory-5Fgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=UIxALV6nC0i0REWXcxwY9XJkwi_k0lNlkxReXKG7Kc4&e=>.
>>>>>>>>>> In other words, to me, they are all completely blind to physical qualities
>>>>>>>>>> or qualia. In fact, as far as I know, all of “peer reviewed” scientific
>>>>>>>>>> literature, to date, is obliviously qualia blind. Is not the qualitative
>>>>>>>>>> nature of consciousness it’s most important attribute?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One important thing regarding conscious knowledge is the
>>>>>>>>>> following necessary truth:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “If you know something, there must be something physical that is
>>>>>>>>>> that knowledge.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This implies there are two sets of physical qualities we must
>>>>>>>>>> consider when trying to objectively perceive physical qualities:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our
>>>>>>>>>> observation. These properties initiate the perception process, such as a
>>>>>>>>>> strawberry reflecting red light.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final
>>>>>>>>>> results of the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as
>>>>>>>>>> *redness*.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If we seek to find what it is in our brain which has a redness
>>>>>>>>>> quality, we must associate and identify the necessary and sufficient set of
>>>>>>>>>> physics for a redness experience. For example, it is a hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>> possibility that it is glutamate, reacting in synapses, that has the
>>>>>>>>>> redness quality. If experimentalists could verify this, we would know that
>>>>>>>>>> it is glutamate that has a redness quality. We would then finally know
>>>>>>>>>> that it is glutamate we should interpret “red” as describing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, given all that, and given that consciousness is composed of a
>>>>>>>>>> boat load of diverse qualia or physical qualities all computationally bound
>>>>>>>>>> together, and if experimentalists can verify these predictions about the
>>>>>>>>>> qualitative nature of various physical things. Would that not imply the
>>>>>>>>>> following definitions?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Intentionality, free will, intersubjectivity, self-awareness,
>>>>>>>>>> desire, love, spirits… indeed consciousness itself, are all computational
>>>>>>>>>> bound composite qualitative knowledge.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As always, for more information, see the emerging expert
>>>>>>>>>> consensus
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=0lbtXYwu6UYUdQeUkWWMfrHjCaUUKuXa5N1zYDhjsf8&e=>
>>>>>>>>>> camp over at canonizer.com
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=QF6BXcCLyHuTabm0Y_tR_F1kNvcsGgmM-j5AKZ5FuaE&e=>
>>>>>>>>>> being called: “Representational Qualia Theory
>>>>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=pEF0jzBSKnzm7WMm97GdK89Xq78vTnh8L2J427I7nac&e=>”.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click
>>>>>>>>>> the following link:
>>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click
>>>>>>>>> the following link:
>>>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>>> following link:
>>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>> following link:
>>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link:
>>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
|
