Gregg, I can understand your reservations about the cell being conscious,
but if you think of our physiology as a continuum, why wouldn't you
consider that to be the case? When we are formed embryologically, we start
from a unicellular state (the zygote), which gives rise to the 200+
different cell types we are composed of. At each step of embryogenesis the
cells are sensing their 'being' through homeostasis, culminating in the
offspring. Jesse Roth showed back in the 80's that insulin is produced by
neurons, for example, whereas we usually think of it being produced by the
beta islet cells of the pancreas......all the cells of the body have the
same genetic make-up, it's just that some do specialized things. And
there's evidence of synchronized calcium flow between liver cells (Wu D,
Jia Y. Mean-field coupling of calcium oscillations in a multicellular
system of rat hepatocytes. Biophys Chem. 2007 Feb;125(2-3):247-53)
supporting the idea that all cells are 'aware' of their surroundings, not
just neurons. As for this being relevant to the 'hard problem', as I have
said before, the microtubules of the brain that Penrose has said are the
basis for integrated thought are present in the cells of the visceral
organs too. So when neuroendocrine hormones are produced in the brain
(endorphins, oxytocin) they act on the brain and body to integrate and
synchronize the calcium signals (Torday JS. Pleiotropy, the physiologic
basis for biologic fields. Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2018 Feb 9), which may be
the 'solution' to the hard problem(?). I consider this idea to be of
importance because it provides a way to understand consciousness as
derivative of the Cosmic Consciousness of the Singularity, i.e. this is why
we believe that there is something greater than ourselves that may/not be
what we usually think of as religion. As such that relationship is of
importance in considering the basis for normal v abnormal psychology in the
big picture. Hope that was helpful.....j

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:30 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> John,
>
> Thanks for sharing these thoughts. As a function of our conversations, I
> definitely think of myself more as a “physiological whole.” As we have
> discussed, I love the idea of the brain as being a sort of “inverted skin”
> and that frees up some interesting thinking in me about how the brain is
> connected into the body. I am also internalizing more and more the idea of
> a continuum of awareness and thinking of biology as being a
> self-referential/self-organizing awareness entity.
>
>
>
> As we have discussed, though, I do continue to struggle with issues of
> terminology and what the terms we are using reference. Generally speaking,
> when I am using the term consciousness, I am using it differently than you
> (I think). I am using it as the “theater of experience” that I have. It is
> my first person view of the world. Here is one diagram that captures what I
> mean:
>
>
>
>
>
> The Yellow part is what I am referring to. It consists of
> sensory/perceptual inputs, drives and urges, emotionally charged action
> motives, imaginal wonderings (simulated actions), and narrative thought,
> which is the home of my explicit self-consciousness. That is the
> deliberative part of me that decides to write this email. When I go to
> sleep, the lights go out on that yellow part, and then they flicker on and
> off when I dream. If I could engage in lucid dreaming, then my
> self-conscious portion would also come on line.
>
>
>
> Anyway, if all the cells in my body are conscious in the sense you are
> using the term, then clearly we are talking about different phenomena. They
> may well be related. Cell-cell communication and awareness “accumulation”
> (if you will pardon the phrase) may well be intimately connected to what
> allows me to have conscious experience. But an important clue or frame is
> very different than explaining the hard problem, right?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L@
> listserv.jmu.edu] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2018 10:59 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: FW: science practice issues
>
>
>
> Gregg, thank you for sharing your deep thoughts on the science and
> practice of psychology. With all humility, I currently wonder whether you
> and I are barking up the same tree (ultimately) with regard to
> understanding physiology as the common denominator for both mind and body.
> That is to say, if we don't understand the 'big picture' central theory of
> what life constitutes, then when things go awry we use ad hoc methods
> rather than addressing the problem at its root cause- that's true in both
> medicine and psychology. So in that spirit I share a manuscript submitted
> for publication for sharing my thoughts about 'the great scheme of things'.
> Perhaps this is too metaphysical for the ToK/List, but I thought the time
> may have come to run it up the flagpole.....
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 1:00 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>   Well, John, funny you should raise the issue of big picture stuff and
> the state of mental health and the relationship between science and
> practice. It has been very much on my mind, as I have been engaged in a
> spirited debate with a number of folks on this issue. The debate has been
> triggered by APA treatment guidelines for PTSD. The APA posted them last
> year, and there was a strong push to repeal them. Although the push
> generated a petition signed by almost 50,000 folks, and a petition in
> support of the guidelines only generated 3,500, yesterday the guidelines
> were upheld.
>
>
>
> I signed neither petition and in many ways sit in a unique position
> relative to the debate. Here are some musings if you want to get a flavor.
> As with any complicated guild/institution, the issues are very complicated
> once you start getting into the specifics of the debate.
>
>
>
> Anyway, this is just food for thought
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> *Sent:* Saturday, March 10, 2018 3:56 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* science practice issues
>
>
>
> HI Unified Psych list,
>
>
>
> I thought I would share with this list that I have been musing a lot about
> the whole science-practice thing lately. I spent the day sketching out the
> various pieces of the puzzle as I see them and as they have been floating
> around in my head. This is a major project and what I am sharing is more
> like a brainstorm than any specific argument. But I decided to share it
> here to let others know how I am kicking things around.
>
>
>
> Fundamentally, I am trying to point out a couple of things.
>
>
>
> First, there are at least three elements always going on in the
> science-practice divide. There is the (1) *practice element* (what one is
> doing in the clinic room), there is the (2) *research element* (what
> empirical studies have been done) and there is one’s (3) *conceptual
> scheme* that links the two and provides the basic interpretive frame for
> both.
>
>
>
> Virtually ALL of my attention in my thinking and work is on the last part.
> That is, my mission has been to develop a conceptual scheme that is both up
> to the task of practice and assimilate and integrates research in a
> cumulative and workable manner. The Unified Theory/Unified Approach
> framework I operate from is the sense-making system I use for both science
> and practice.
>
>
>
> In wrestling with the guideline debate, I keep coming back to the
> question, W*hat is the larger conceptual scheme that the psychologist is
> operating off of that justifies the application of research (or not) in the
> specific instance of them treating a particular individual in a particular
> context? *
>
>
>
> I have been completely struck by the complete absence of this element in
> the PTSD Guidelines. Indeed, this is why I don’t think they are
> well-characterized as guidelines, but instead are essentially a literature
> review.
>
>
>
> The other thing that has launched into my consciousness in this debate is
> that I differentiate between levels of intervention and specifically
> between counseling, psychotherapy, and psychological treatment. I share
> this distinction in various ways and various times with my students, but it
> has emerged as important in this debate as I have dialogued with many folks
> about it. The attached document offers some reflections on such
> distinctions. The short of it is that when folks are dealing with full
> blown mental disorders, such that it is pretty clear that the disorder is a
> major problem rather than a symptom of the problem, then we do need a more
> structured, active, systematic approach, IMO. For example, when a client is
> in the midst of a MDD of moderate-to-severe levels, there are definitely
> things that NEED TO BE DONE. The situation is much less prescribed when
> dealing with adjustment disorder with depressed mood into MDD mild.
>
>
>
> Another thing that this highlighted is that I do believe I am at a place
> where I am ready to delineate my general approach to psychotherapy with
> folks who I would classify as falling in the neurotic cluster (clinically
> sig negative affect, relational identity problems, seeking psychotherapy
> but not well-characterized by a full blown mental disorder…that is, an
> depressed/discouraged/anxious/low resilient/low self-esteem/isolated
> person). This starts with my Well-being check up system, and then leads
> into shared understanding of focus for enhancing adaptive living.
>
>
>
> What is needed in next steps to dance with the conventual system is to
> systematize this approach, test it and show that it at least gets the
> normal standard good results of a bona fide approach and then have that be
> the control condition against which other conditions are measured. I
> acknowledge that a part of me resists this both because of the work (I am
> dispositionally more of a theorist than researcher) and I feel that a
> principled approach to treatment that is grounded in the best available
> evidence is all the justification that is needed for the approach.
>
>
>
> I am also thinking that this general bona fide psychotherapy would not
> only be used for the neurotic cluster. But rather the vision I have is that
> it would become the control condition relative to specific psychological
> treatments for specific problems. If someone could beat my generic,
> principled approach to psychotherapy in a specified psychological treatment
> for a specific condition (e.g., bulimia, PTSD, OCD) then we could have high
> confidence that it was effective relative to effective practitioners
> general approach.  This, of course, points out one of the great weaknesses
> of ESTs. What they mean has everything to do with what they have been
> compared to. However, that is often not clear or not strong and thus the
> meaning of effect sizes are definitely up for debate in terms of what they
> should guide an experienced clinician to do. If though, as psychological
> treatment system could systematically outperform a generic bona fide
> principled psychotherapy, then I would be impressed and keen on learning
> it.
>
>
>
> Well, that is how I have spent my Saturday. Perhaps folks less obsessed
> with our field are actually getting out and having fun 😊.
>
>
>
> Please share thoughts if you have them.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
> ############################
>
> 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