John:
Thanks! I went through your conference slides and look forward to
looking at these books as well -- all good cell-level analysis,
reminding me of my own work on rod/cone membranes (taken from frog
eyes, done long ago in Deric Bownds lab at UW-Mad.)
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__vision.wisc.edu_staff_bownds-2Dphd-2Dm-2Dderic_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XofPhkew3QnprYF7XRa7zIntgMNaI9ZFEk0it9N9rrk&s=9r22SU0E42XJiy03pfqlehHZmhv997aSCCULZ4U01CY&e=
But, so far, I haven't seen any explanation of why these mechanisms
*should* have "anything" to with "consciousness" (any more than
Penrose's quantum approach &c.) What is it that compels you to even
believe that there *is* a "Theory of Everything" in this sense?
Why is any of this relevant to human "conscious" psychology (which,
btw, given its *very* recent appearance, seems to be a product of
technology, not simple biology, per se) . . . ??
Mark
P.S. Are you familiar with the work of Jaynes or Donald (or, for that
matter, interested) . . . ??
Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
> Mark, I deliberately left the details out of my explanation regarding
> consciousness a) because I gave my lecture at JMU for the ToKers
> and didn't want to be in their face yet again with my TOE(Theory of
> Everything), and b) because as Ricky said to Lucy "you got a lot a
> splanin' to do". Basically, I have been able to take what we know about the
> morphogenetic mechanisms of lung development as cell-cell
> communication and work the whole process of gas exchange back to its
> origins with the insertion of cholesterol into the cell membrane as
> the catalyst for that property of vertebrates, from unicellular to
> multicellular organisms. The advantage of this approach is that it starts
> at
> the beginning of ontogeny and phylogeny instead of reasoning from the end
> results backwards, which we know a priori is illogical, and
> b) is based on testable/refutable data, not philosophy. Suffice it to say
> that before I started contributing to the literature on evolutionary
> mechanisms in 2004 there was absolutely no cell biology in that literature,
> literally, due to the evolutionists by-passing Cell Theory in favor
> of genetics as their way of advancing evolution theory. I began with lung
> biology as the archetype for the evolution of vertebrate viscera,
> and then, because the molecular pathways are shared with other tissues and
> organs, I was able to extrapolate to other phenotypes.
> I have attached the PROOF copies of the first three books I have published
> using this approach.....your comments are welcomed. Of late, I
> have been focused on Consciousness as the consequence of vertically
> integrated physiologic evolution because I have hypothesized that
> it is actually the aggregate of our physilogy, allowing us to be aware of
> the environment and ourselves because it is the sum total of the
> endogenization of the external environment....hopefully the books will help
> make that clear(er)(ish). John
>
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 9:08 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> John:
>>
>> As you know, Mitochondria have no "reasoning" or any of the rest of this
>> list -- in the sense that these apply to humans. I've read many of your
>> remarks in the archives but I confess I'm still not sure what you think
>> about how all of these "powers" developed in human biology.
>>
>> Perhaps we should get some clarity about your views on how that
>> "evolution" occurred in biology before we move on to robots (and please
>> don't answer "complexity/emergence" which is *not* a description of biology
>> but rather the way some people model the processes inside stars and other
>> nuclear furnaces, like hydrogen bombs, which is to say spectacularly "dead"
>> things) . . . ??
>>
>> "Now I have become death, the destroyer of worlds" -- Robert Oppenheimer
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> P.S. When I was studying for my PhD in Molecular Biology (c.1971, never
>> finished largely due to the withdrawal of NSF &al funding post-Vietnam), I
>> was very interested in the discussion about how life did-or-did-not conform
>> to 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As you know, "entropy" and "negentropy,"
>> along with distinctions between "open" and "closed" energy systems have
>> long been the terms employed in that dialogue, as well as in the early
>> discussions about "information theory." I became convinced that these
>> early 19th-century notions (such as Carnot's 2nd Law, c. 1824), generally
>> built on 17th notions, came from a *different* scientific paradigm and
>> most-likely these "machine" terms simply didn't apply to living beings.
>> Indeed, given what we know now (or, for that matter, what we once knew),
>> why should they?
>>
>> P.P.S. One of my favorite songs (many years ago) was the Soul II Soul
>> tune, "Get a Life" (aka "What's the Meaning") perhaps you will like it also
>> . . . !!
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.you
>> tube.com_watch-3Fv-3DBOXIBXnMris&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb
>> 7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-j
>> IYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ABELRMSxycPHOe6uKKJHmVryWmYf3ysD5q3vWB279ig&
>> s=dMBd46uRDGLb8MlWK_mwiIKqMzWWss1fQ1tYbPu7Bu8&e=
>>
>>
>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I wanted to reply to Waldemar's list of human
>>> attributes that a computer cannot emulate:
>>>
>>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>>
>>> My biased view from many many years of reductionist
>>> science/biology/evolution theory is that those attributes are
>>> the net result of the literal endogenization of the external environment
>>> by
>>> the cell. The best known example
>>> is the mitochondrion, which evolved from cohabitation with bacteria, but
>>> there are many other such
>>> examples in the evolution of physiology. The other aspect of this process
>>> of evolution is that the organism must have a memory
>>> that allows it to recall circumstances in its past in order to solve
>>> emerging environmental problems it is challenged
>>> by, because all such evolved 'novelties' are due to repurposing of old
>>> genes for new structures and functions, which
>>> Stephen J. Gould termed exaptations. The reason I mention all of this is
>>> because a computer that would
>>> be able to accomplish the 5 feats listed above would have to be able to
>>> recapitulate this mechanism of
>>> evolution in order to be able to mimic consciousness. In other words, it
>>> couldn't achieve this by merely having a database
>>> composed of all of the world's Information, but by having a database
>>> founded hierarchically on human evolutionary 'experience',
>>> beginning with the ambiguity of the first cell, its internal environment
>>> constituted by negative entropy, or free
>>> energy, sustained by chemiosmosis as its source of internal energy, and
>>> monitored by homeostasis, the aggregate
>>> of which I have termed The First Principles of Physiology. Awareness of
>>> these relationships from the first instantation
>>> of life to what we think of as 'mind' are the 'qualia' that Chalmers has
>>> invoked for consciousness. And the externalization
>>> of this process is what Andy Clark has referred to as 'disembodied
>>> consciousness', which I think is the on-going effort to
>>> return to the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang, by
>>> reconciling the dualities and dichotomies that were generated
>>> by the explosive disruption of the Singularity. Could this process be
>>> mimicked by Artificial Intelligence?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ToKers:
>>>>
>>>> "Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that changes its
>>>> demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living -- which is to say,
>>>> after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it
>>>> cannot adopt anything like a single "universal" attitude.
>>>>
>>>> Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't the same
>>>> as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's "science" will appear
>>>> to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as you might recall, my father
>>>> was
>>>> a historian of science and I'm trained as a molecular biologist, so I
>>>> have
>>>> spent some time thinking about this topic.)
>>>>
>>>> Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not
>>>> institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as the
>>>> rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was a science
>>>> that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this list) the
>>>> lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read the archives and
>>>> noted that Gregg and John have already said a few words about all this.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture, since it is
>>>> impossible to actually eliminate what lies underneath/behind whatever
>>>> science claims itself to be (in any particular paradigm). This fake
>>>> effort
>>>> to eliminate what can't be eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of the
>>>> world" by Max Weber in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has
>>>> resulted in the current collapse of what many take to be the foundation
>>>> of
>>>> "modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
>>>>
>>>> Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific American, John
>>>> Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, NJ,
>>>> where he teaches "creative writing"), wrote a fascinating article titled
>>>> "How Physics Lost Its Way" that I recommend.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.s
>>>> cientificamerican.com_cross-2Dcheck_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Di
>>>> ts-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>>>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy
>>>> 5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
>>>>
>>>> This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost in Math:
>>>> How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend . . . <g>
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ama
>>>> zon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_
>>>> 0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_
>>>> 5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>>>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNr
>>>> NdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
>>>>
>>>> I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of *paradigms*
>>>> -- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until Gregg returns from
>>>> vacation but perhaps another important book will stimulate some thinking
>>>> on
>>>> the matter. This is the crucial topic of *causality*, which, as it turns
>>>> out, requires metaphysics.
>>>>
>>>> Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and Effect" is
>>>> an
>>>> attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence researcher (and the
>>>> "inventor"
>>>> of Bayesian networks) to put a band-aid on the longstanding problem of
>>>> *causality* in the West, going back to the Royal Society and its
>>>> "rejection" (which, btw, does not exist in the same way in the East).
>>>>
>>>> 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=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-
>>>> vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0H
>>>> BRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
>>>>
>>>> Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach Island
>>>> if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>> P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have noticed
>>>> that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of Marshall
>>>> McLuhan.
>>>> His last book was published posthumously with the title "The Laws of
>>>> Media:
>>>> The New Science," although, for many years, that title and subtitle were
>>>> reversed, echoing the title of Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza Nuova."
>>>> Vico was writing in opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e.
>>>> Newton
>>>> &al), making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately
>>>> turned
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wiki
>>>> pedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FScience&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCg
>>>> mb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-
>>>> UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx
>>>> _mSj8C3g3HDGw&
>>>> s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
>>>>
>>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>>
>>>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the
>>>> problem
>>>>
>>>>> I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between
>>>>> information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to
>>>>> the
>>>>> distinction between information and knowledge is that the Informaticists
>>>>> think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem, you
>>>>> only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of
>>>>> the
>>>>> Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is
>>>>> inadequate
>>>>> for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we know
>>>>> that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As Jaron
>>>>> Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget". In order
>>>>> to
>>>>> understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need to
>>>>> 'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret
>>>>> and
>>>>> utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
>>>>> essential.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Friends:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating
>>>>>> information
>>>>>> and knowledge.
>>>>>> John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is
>>>>>> (or
>>>>>> may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom,
>>>>>> or
>>>>>> vision:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the
>>>>>> elements
>>>>>> apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat that the
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
>>>>>> It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>>>>>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>>>>>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>>>>>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>>>>>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
>>>>>> functions.
>>>>>> Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
>>>>>> Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
>>>>>> Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
>>>>>> application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by
>>>>>> computers,
>>>>>> the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
>>>>>> Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do these
>>>>>> tasks,
>>>>>> but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the
>>>>>> above
>>>>>> requires considerable education and/or experience.
>>>>>> Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
>>>>>> differences between D, I, K, W & V?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Waldemar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>>>>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>>>>> 503.631.8044
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in the
>>>>>> 20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first language is
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs
>>>>>> beginning
>>>>>> in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
>>>>>> assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until
>>>>>> graduate
>>>>>> school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill
>>>>>> University
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were actively
>>>>>> engaged
>>>>>> in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
>>>>>> number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us to
>>>>>> problem
>>>>>> solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the laboratory,
>>>>>> above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the hypothesis
>>>>>> correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
>>>>>> research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist does much
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> same research, only without having to generate data. When we were
>>>>>> looking
>>>>>> for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school
>>>>>> representatives
>>>>>> were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
>>>>>> liberal education was good preparation for such a situation.......does
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> narrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher
>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>> to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few students
>>>>>>> still
>>>>>>> remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and
>>>>>>> humanities.
>>>>>>> But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I
>>>>>>> cannot
>>>>>>> remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the issues in
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this
>>>>>>> degree?
>>>>>>> This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government
>>>>>>> ministries
>>>>>>> consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has
>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>> increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best, -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-
>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&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]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
>>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
>>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I find
>>>>>>> the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the
>>>>>>> conflation
>>>>>>> of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the educational
>>>>>>> mission is
>>>>>>> equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the 2016
>>>>>>> Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
>>>>>>> education. The discussion of that issue revolved around equating
>>>>>>> education
>>>>>>> with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are
>>>>>>> undermining
>>>>>>> the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom
>>>>>>> line
>>>>>>> enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the generation
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it is
>>>>>>> understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of expediency
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
>>>>>>> understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are teaching them
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and cents,
>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> the result.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
>>>>>>> points for us to consider. However I think that there's an overriding
>>>>>>> problem due to the tendency to equate Information and Knowledge. This
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the 'Arab
>>>>>>> Spring'
>>>>>>> of technology leveling institutions of society, including
>>>>>>> science.....discusss?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Please see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018 issue
>>>>>>> of *Scientific
>>>>>>> American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking they've
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
>>>>>>> well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or what we
>>>>>>> refer
>>>>>>> to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the
>>>>>>> article
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> a few reasons.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at
>>>>>>> least the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching
>>>>>>> similar
>>>>>>> conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns with much
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our list-serv.
>>>>>>> Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we hope
>>>>>>> we're
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own
>>>>>>> "confirmation
>>>>>>> biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to help
>>>>>>> keep
>>>>>>> us honest!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as
>>>>>>> exemplars) the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be
>>>>>>> fair-minded, 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints, new
>>>>>>> info, etc. And yet the academy itself has been increasingly under
>>>>>>> attack in
>>>>>>> recent years as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by not
>>>>>>> embracing alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers, especially
>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>> the right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal
>>>>>>> orthodoxy" or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university
>>>>>>> professors -- scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on this
>>>>>>> issue a couple of weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> the issue is actually much broader in the sense that these issues
>>>>>>> affect
>>>>>>> all of us, both inside and outside of academia. It's not simply a
>>>>>>> matter of
>>>>>>> any of us being "experts" in our fields or far more knowledgeable
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> "facts" and "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All
>>>>>>> knowledge has a relational component too, i.e., depends upon the
>>>>>>> social
>>>>>>> location of the actors relative to each other in combination with the
>>>>>>> cultural sources of justification systems invoked. This explains in
>>>>>>> large
>>>>>>> measure, in my view, the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake
>>>>>>> news"
>>>>>>> critiques that have gained such popularity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many fields
>>>>>>> within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and
>>>>>>> humanities
>>>>>>> -- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about the
>>>>>>> standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have helped
>>>>>>> certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many
>>>>>>> generations
>>>>>>> (and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
>>>>>>> well-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms
>>>>>>> something I've hypothesized about for years) showing the adverse
>>>>>>> effects of
>>>>>>> early childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and
>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>> adverse behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and
>>>>>>> "interpret"
>>>>>>> that information? What are the implications for even something as
>>>>>>> basic
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> "equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
>>>>>>> exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other
>>>>>>> factors
>>>>>>> that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in a
>>>>>>> certain
>>>>>>> neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a
>>>>>>> thousand
>>>>>>> other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the
>>>>>>> various
>>>>>>> mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm thinking
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> la
>>>>>>> Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -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-
>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.
>>>>>>> google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-
>>>>>>> 250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-
>>>>>>> 26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vC
>>>>>>> I4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYB
>>>>>>> gjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=
>>>>>>> Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
>>>>>> 1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>>> or click the following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> or click the following link:
>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> or click the following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>>
>> ############################
>>
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> or click the following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>
> ############################
>
> 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
|