....In the interim I got a voicemail from Gregg defining what
Knower/anti-knower means....I got it backwards, so with apologies. Gregg
tells me that anti-knower is how science extricated us from the knower
category, so I'm all in on that. But I would still refer y'all to my
insight to why controlling an experiment is even more important than I had
considered because it transcends the immediate space-time of the doing of
the experiment, factoring out the subjectivities of the resulting data that
are constantly lurking in the background. As scientists, we recognize that
science is a function of increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, but hadn't
really appreciated that fully till I considered Bohm's paradigm of
Explicate/Implicate. j

On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:56 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Gregg and TOKers,
>
> Regarding Gregg's last email....
>
> *"'Here is how I understand my and John’s dilemma. If you look at the
> attached Tree of Knowledge System poster, check out the diagrams on the
> bottom and go to the third one. It starts with Energy on the left and goes
> through Matter, Life, Mind and Culture down to a point. On the flip side,
> there is the “self/knower,” which starts at the Cultural dimension and goes
> down. In this email, that is what I have been emphasizing. On the top,
> there is the equation, Knowledge = known x knower/knower. Meaning that
> objective scientific knowledge is a function of that which is known by
> knowers, factoring out the unique subjective knower. The diagram shows what
> I mean. That is, the “anti-knower” refers to the conceptual process by
> which we factor out our human subjective knowledge and arrive at a
> holistic, generalizable “true” picture of matter and consciousness and
> everywhere in between. The scientific method is the anti-knower."*
>
> Unfortunately I cannot see the details of the poster, but I think I get
> the gist of what Gregg is saying here.....but I don't understand how he
> concludes that the scientific method is the 'anti-knower'. I would conclude
> that the scientific method is the 'knower' myself. Let me explain. First,
> when a scientist does a controlled experiment he/she states a hypothesis
> which is phrased to obtain a 'yes' or 'no' answer, a 'yes' answer
> supporting the hypothesized idea, a 'no' answer supporting the so-called
> 'null hypothesis'. That eliminates the subjectivity that Gregg is talking
> about. Furthermore, I have only recently realized that the reason we
> control an experiment is because of the tendency for subjectivity in
> observation, as Bohm has taught us in his book "Wholeness and the Implicate
> Order". As he explains it, we exist in the Explicate Order, formed by our
> subjective, evolved senses, but that there is an Implicate Order just
> beyond our reach that is free of subjective human biases. When we control a
> scientific experiment we are taking such biases into account so that we may
> approximate the Implicate Order. Perhaps in Gregg's parlance, we move from
> anti-knower to knower?
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:30 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Hi TOKers,
>>
>> I am heading out to a conference (Theoretical and Philosophical
>> Psychology) where I will be meeting up with Edward to support his
>> presentation on Emotional Warfare and One Divide. Thus will likely not be
>> replying in the next few days. I have enjoyed the conversation and helpful
>> exchange of ideas.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will offer some parting thoughts. First, this conversation shows how
>> “big” the concept of consciousness is. It is arguably the central problem
>> in philosophy. That is, the relationship between our subjective field and
>> the external world. Even that “dichotomy” raises questions from a number of
>> analytical perspectives. But, the fact is that philosophy, like all of our
>> knowledge systems has become so pluralistic, it is hard to know what to
>> believe at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> One of my hopes with the ToK/UTUA System is by bringing a unified
>> framework together for both natural philosophy and phenomenological being,
>> a crucial aspect of the bridge that has previously been missing can now be
>> complete.
>>
>>
>>
>> First, let’s describe the situation we find ourselves in. I posit that
>> our individual and small group first-person experience of human
>> consciousness can be mapped via the Tripartite Model. That is, each of us
>> has a subjective, perceptual “empirical” (as in through the senses)
>> experiential self system. Open your eyes and that is what you see. Second,
>> we each have a language-based narrator, that has the remarkable capacity to
>> either be private (as in when we talk to ourselves) or public (as when we
>> talk to others). Here is the map:
>>
>> Now let’s consider our group “situation” as the TOK list serve. That is,
>> the TOK is the “network society” that is serving as a hub for us as we
>> participate and interact with each other. And each of us can be thought of
>> as nodes in the network (I am indebted to Alexander Bard here). The
>> internet and our keyboards provide the informational interface for our
>> interactions and transactions.
>>
>>
>>
>> What is the “structure and function” of the system as a whole? Our
>> justification systems, our question and answer claims about what is and
>> what is not. Or, in late Wittgensteinian terms “language games.” That is,
>> each of us has a phenomenal position in the world and each of us are
>> narrating our version of reality. The term language games refers to the
>> “grammar” or concepts and categories we are using to make sense of the
>> world. The rules of the game are our methods for determining what is
>> legitimate and what is not.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now we move to John’s language game/metaphysical empirical version of
>> reality. John’s justification system is that, via some unique empirical
>> findings, he has transcended the traditional descriptive biological view
>> and achieved a view of reality that logically flows from first principles;
>> that is, the big bang, action/reaction sparking a homeostatic free energy
>> flow that gives rise to the core “first” principles of physiology. For
>> John, this gets us out of our narrow anthropomorphic subjective view and
>> allows for a truly scientific (i.e., analytically objective, physicalist)
>> view of nature.
>>
>>
>>
>> Here is how I understand my and John’s dilemma. If you look at the
>> attached Tree of Knowledge System poster, check out the diagrams on the
>> bottom and go to the third one. It starts with Energy on the left and goes
>> through Matter, Life, Mind and Culture down to a point. On the flip side,
>> there is the “self/knower,” which starts at the Cultural dimension and goes
>> down. In this email, that is what I have been emphasizing. On the top,
>> there is the equation, Knowledge = known x knower/knower. Meaning that
>> objective scientific knowledge is a function of that which is known by
>> knowers, factoring out the unique subjective knower. The diagram shows what
>> I mean. That is, the “anti-knower” refers to the conceptual process by
>> which we factor out our human subjective knowledge and arrive at a
>> holistic, generalizable “true” picture of matter and consciousness and
>> everywhere in between. The scientific method is the anti-knower.
>>
>>
>>
>> I have been arguing with John, not so much because I disagree with his
>> first principle view. But I experiencing it as eliminating my theory of the
>> knower in an overly strong manner (as many physicalist reductive positions
>> tend to do). My plea is that to get the equation right we need to include
>> our subjective knower systems. We can not just eliminate them; to do so
>> would be to eliminate all that we hold dear. What we need to do is first
>> factor IN the human knower, before we factor her out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Then, we can get a full view of existence that includes matter and
>> reflective consciousness and everything in between.
>>
>>
>> Gotta run.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> G
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:39 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System
>> of Neoliberalism
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>>
>>
>> You said: “I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness sees
>> looking at a strawberry?”.  Exactly.  People with the inability to
>> distinguish between red and green light, have this problem because they
>> represent both of these colors of light with the same physical quality.  We
>> don’t yet know if it is our redness, greenness, or something else,
>> entirely.  Tetra-chromats have an extra color they represent some of the
>> visible spectrum with, so they can distinguish between similar colored
>> light, which us normal tri-chromats are color blind too.  I want to know
>> what that color I’ve never experienced before is like.
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm looking forward to when we finally know which physics in our brain,
>> have these qualities, so we can finally say effing if the ineffable things
>> like "My redness is like your greenness", and "oh THAT is what that 4th
>> color is like"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:03 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Brent, I am saying that because oxytocin has pleiotropic effects perhaps
>> it connects the image of a strawberry to its taste on the tongue and the
>> color red. And these  elements of red strawberries were acquired across
>> space/time diachronically. That’s what I imagine quaila to be as free
>> associations . I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness sees
>> looking at a strawberry?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:52 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Just so I am clear, Is your distinction below parallel or similar to Locke’s
>> distinction between primary and secondary qualities
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Primary_secondary-5Fquality-5Fdistinction&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gYtcWhJWfW_jwIkpdOIqstz4l4xPnp3Chp0vIZobamM&s=pK9xRcnEhvTDmerVyZRDnnr2XRkxDtX15ylr08Rsq9I&e=>?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>> Gregg
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:47 PM
>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System
>> of Neoliberalism
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>> I have missed the point, because we are talking about completely
>> different things.  Everything you are saying makes complete sense, in a
>> completely qualia blind way.  For example, when you talk about linking “color
>> and other physiologic functions of oxytocin” what do you mean by
>> “color”?  It seems that what you mean by color, you are only talking about
>> abstract names, such as the word “red”.
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m talking about something completely different.  I’m talking about
>> physical qualities, not their names.  Within my model, when you say color,
>> I don’t know which of the flooring two physical properties you are talking
>> about:
>>
>>
>>
>> 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*.
>>
>>
>>
>> I guess you’re not talking about either of these, you are only talking
>> about the physical properties of oxytocin, and how it behaves in the
>> retina?  Would you agree that it is a very real possibility, that
>> experimentalists, operating in a non-qualia blind way, could falsify any
>> belief that oxytocin is necessary for any computationally bound composite
>> conscious experiences of redness, or any other qualia?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:26 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Brent, I think that you have missed the point of the hormone oxytocin
>> functionally connecting the cell that perceives color (the cone) with the
>> epithelial cells that line the retina, offering a way of physically seeing
>> red in conjunction with pain.....it's a hypothesis for linking vision and
>> color and other physiologic functions of oxytocin, of which there are many,
>> including regulation of body heat, empathy, the relaxation of the uterus
>> during birth and production of breast milk, referred to as 'let down',
>> which I always thought was a funny term, be that as it may. I would
>> imagine, for example, that a woman in labor might see red due to the pain
>> of that experience. And just to expand on that idea of interconnections
>> between physiology and physics, the attached paper shows the homologies
>> (same origin) between Quantum Mechanics and The First Principles of
>> Physiology. That nexus would hypothetically open up to seeing a red
>> strawberry, particularly because I equated pleiotropy (the interconnections
>> between physiologic traits through the distribution of the same gene in
>> different tissues and organs) with non-localization, the physics that
>> Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance'.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:48 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi John,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m glad you at least mentioned the name, “red” of a physical quality.
>> But are the physical properties of oxytocin, or the physical properties of
>> anything in the retina anything like either of the physical qualities of
>> these two things?
>>
>>
>>
>> 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*.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other than the fact that we may be able to abstractly interpret some of
>> these physical qualities, like we can interpret the word “red” as
>> representing a redness physical quality?  You can’t know what the word red
>> (or anything in the eye representing anything) means, unless you provide a
>> mechanical interpretation mechanism that get’s you back to the real
>> physical quality they represent.
>>
>>
>>
>> All abstract representations (including all computer knowledge) are
>> abstracted away from physical qualities.  Any set of physical qualities,
>> like that of a particular physical cone in a retina, can represent a 1 (or
>> anything else), but only if you have an interpretation mechanism to get the
>> one, from that particular set of physics.  Consciousness, on the other
>> hand, represents knowledge directly on physical qualities, like redness and
>> greenness.  This is more efficient, since it requires less abstracting
>> hardware.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:14 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> 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