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.thefreelibrary.com_On-2Brenaissances.-2Da0280004550&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lh6Lcd-ER-b1V1FpzT-hBnKCIm1Lg-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.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=POmLosCA0tYJjs_9TZnQPfQXaSnQYSIwmixG5vwr8ak&s=LjtMOtZzgS-7Nb0RR-9fQuE_bklguSGt9D_qXcoIXbM&e=
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IaMMB4evoGavxNoKGb5gSizGuZun4YG7nEP68lcevLs&s=iJm-SpfJ2m8Bmdvz6HLfb5KfN9ugJqmj7kZBhenoVaI&e=>
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_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.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3D4JoErXyAd98&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_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.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_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.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_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.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_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--9pqCh13JqvmXDTHfk0_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-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
|
