....and for the 'amphibians' article. I am one myself, having been born in Budapest and brought to the US as a child. I went to public school and assimilated, but we spoke Hungarian at home and I was exposed to Austro/Hungarian culture (my grandparents were Viennese immigrants who had a major influence on my childhood). So I understand what Brooks is talking about, BUT as he pointed out, we were exposed to the history and principles of this country in school, which I think is very important. As Santayana said, "Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it". I don't know how you can have a conversation about race or gender or ______ without knowing what has transpired in this country socially, politically, culturally....it's a 'house of cards'. I know this isn't a popular position (Question Authority!), but it is a must that we teach basics if we are to make real progress IMO. On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 8:37 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Gregg, thank you for that David Brooks piece.....I only heard a 'sound > bite' of it on the PBS news hour on Friday, so reading the whole article > was very helpful. Regarding that closing question about how you create > relationships, I have long thought that mandatory public service is sorely > lacking in this country. I'm not advocating for military service for all of > the attendant reasons, but having been in the Army I saw the value added in > forming a 'common will', which we no longer have. > > I like your reduction reduction of the mission/vision of the ToK to a > 'line of awakening'......I would advocate for 'path of awakening' as a more > concrete-ish image, like the path through the forest to seeing the > trees...just sayin'. So yes, I would like to try this approach. jst > > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:57 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Cool to see you guys finding resonance. >> >> >> >> Speaking of a sense of a core problem (or a core of problems), see this >> op ed piece from David Brooks, who interviewed young adults on the current >> state of affairs: >> >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nytimes.com_2018_02_26_opinion_millennials-2Dcolle&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9SXZLXcmypl5OX4pBknzjCfs6t8qYpTWWqU5re4ed_4&s=4g69nh1IEeyPysDEXC2jbZ2s9fV4ksvvfHFm41LHI14&e= >> ge-hopeful.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource= >> story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion= >> opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region >> >> >> >> One comment especially stood out to me: >> >> “We don’t even have a common truth.” >> >> >> >> This is what this list is about. >> >> >> >> How is this for a starting point for a common truth? >> >> >> >> *There is an Energy-Information line from the Big Bang and the creation >> of Matter into Life into Mind into Culture into this exchange amongst us as >> deliberative persons*. >> >> >> >> Perhaps we can call it the line of awakening…. >> >> >> >> Peace, >> G >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Monday, February 26, 2018 8:13 PM >> >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Dear ToKers >> >> >> >> Chance, I think we've found 'resonance' in identifying a core problem in >> society, marching to the beat of someone else's drum beat (Madison Avenue, >> other). I like the notion of syncing the digital medium to local and >> individual biorhythms......my initial reaction was 'stopping to smell the >> roses', and beyond that, what art, music and literature does for us, >> allowing us to find ways to escape the din of the machine. I always taught >> my children that this is a great country, but it's like a roller >> coaster....if you're on the coaster there are huge ups and downs, whereas >> if you observe the coaster, you can maximize the ups and minimize the >> downs. Or at least I would like to think so.... >> >> And I hope we can think out of the box in April. After all, for me that's >> what a liberal education should do for us, though that seems to have been >> worn thin/out, but maybe we can bring it back? I've been writing about the >> evolution of consciousness, particularly the feasibility of what Bucke >> called Cosmic Consciousness, which would perhaps present opportunity to >> think big again? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 7:40 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> >> >> It was refreshing to read your reaction, and I'm grateful for these >> efforts towards clarity. The themes you brought in and the ways in which >> you wove them together indeed 'resonate.' I am now wondering if a "fix" is >> syncing the digital medium to local and individual biorhythms rather than >> the other way around. I feel when I go in that direction, I get a lot of >> "Polo!" back when I shout "Marco." >> >> >> >> Your assessment about the "box" losing its connection to its history is >> spot on. I think that there is a significant opportunity to build a bridge >> across mediums and phylogenetic timelines in a way that is respectful and >> regenerative. >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 7:24 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Chance and ToKers, thank you for your perspective on what I have offered. >> I have also wondered about how neoteny might fit into the physiologic >> evolution of humans. I hope we can discuss that in April if the opportunity >> presents itself because it may present a nexus between my tangential way of >> thinking about evolution and the concrete problems you and your peers in >> psychology face. And if I understand your comments about 'time' correctly, >> the dissociation of our 'selves' from our biologic beings messing with our >> minds (sorry to use such technical terms) is of interest because if we at >> least understood our origins in ambiguity (The resolution of *ambiguity* as >> the basis for life: A cellular bridge between Western reductionism and >> Eastern holism.* Torday* JS, Miller WB Jr.Prog Biophys Mol Biol. 2017 Dec >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pubmed_28743585&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xDVTVJBoH-a3MkCRB5kchcb40bntR9ZrDsHU5N99BFg&s=CmZWRjHR_dmsiJR5m3rahMR18bBGpNanOjMl4edYGWg&e=>) >> and our deceptive practices (Trivers,"The Folly of Fools) as the way we >> cope with ambiguity perhaps we could at least become aware of our unnatural >> and natural motivations, not as inherent foibles, but unfortunate >> consequences of how and why we got to this stage in 'human being'. To put >> it more bluntly, not as 'sinners' who've fallen out of grace, but as the >> recipients of Consciousness of who, what and why we are in order to make >> informed decisions, not just live 'lives of silent despiration'. I allude >> to HD Thoreau because he was the one who taught us that Descartes was wrong >> about the Mind/Body dichotomy, and that by going back to Nature, Thoreau >> could live his life 'deliberately' (I don't think he had a clock in his >> cabin at Walden). If nothing else, the pervasive fear of death that I sense >> is driving much of our behavior (getting back to your clock thing) might be >> better coped with through our recognition of our place in the Cosmos. In >> this mind space I am reminded of the the movie "Before Midnight" in which >> the female lead played by Julie Delpy flips out and goes ballistic on the >> Ethan Hawk character for no apparent reason, despite her seemingly perfect >> life, which is framed on a Greek island that's like 'Eden'. All I could >> think was that she was being plagued by the fear of death. If we don't >> address this and other aspects of our being as the consequences of our >> evolved trajectory, and instead expediently go the way of Artificial >> Intelligence and Crisper I think we will become more and more of a >> silicon-based life form rather than remaining faithful to the First >> Principles of Physiology that have allowed us to think along the lines we >> are talking about, out of the box, because there will only be the box >> without the connection to the Cosmic Consicousness. I think that's what you >> are talking about in your clock allusion Chance.....did I get it right? >> When you stated that what I had said 'sounded' like neoteny, etc, etc, did >> what I had to say 'resonate'? >> >> P.S. I have thought for a long time that one of the reasons that the >> Earth seems to be spinning faster and faster is because digital time forces >> us to think in discrete, precise' intervals, whereas analog time lends >> itself to more of an 'it's about blah blah o'clock', which tends to 'blur' >> time, if you get my drift. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 5:36 PM, Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> What John is describing sounds to me like principles of neotenization, >> which I observe consistently at the psychological level of complexity >> within myself and in others. My idea at this time is that this is a >> healthy and adaptive process that is often undervalued because it defies >> expectations of consistency in our personalities and the regimentations of >> clock time. >> >> >> >> The biologists and geneticists I have met often, and not always, have a >> belief structure that implicitly assumes the superiority of linear >> evolutionary process, but then rejects any spiritual or transcendent >> attractor. I casually attribute that to the combination of a social >> rejection of popular, juvenile concepts of god, and an unchallenged belief >> in newtonian linear time. >> >> >> >> The metaphor that I return to is that dolphins and whales, when they were >> land mammals, decided, "Let's go back into the water." This is not a >> "de-evolution," but the manifestation of a preference. In my brief time as >> a mental health provider, I have perpetually witnessed psychologists and >> health practitioners interrupt longer-term adaptive change processes >> because the intermediary period of transformation deviated from social >> norms or the conceptual capacity of the administrator. >> >> >> >> Spontaneous, passionate, self-driven, and playful behavior is often >> pejoratively labeled a "regression," or "mania." In reality such expression >> is the necessary rejection of impositions caused by living within a culture >> centered on the creation of compliant factory workers, or the effects of >> organismic attempts to efficiently integrate new information into old >> information. >> >> >> >> Furthermore, I currently believe that our adherence to a newtonian >> perspective on linear time is the echo effect of the advanced development >> of the justification system. As we increasingly felt pressured to express >> and interpret concise justifications, our entire view of the Universe began >> to take the shape of a beginning, middle, and end formats. While such a >> view might be convenient for the meeting of immediate human need in a >> complexifying social atmosphere, it may not be the most accurate, or fun, >> model of what's really going on around us. >> >> >> >> From this perspective, much of the variance in consensus seems >> attributable to individual discrepancies in beliefs about when the story >> begins and where it might end. For example, the TOK starts at the Big >> Bang, which is really just a convenient conception until we know more (if >> we even WANT to know more, as we now have enough material now to justify >> emphasis on the experiential consolidation of knowledge into wisdom). >> >> >> >> In summary, human beings do not eat when they are hungry, but because it >> is "lunch time." They do not go to bed when they are sleepy, but go to bed >> because they looked at a box that had the characters "10:00 p.m." flashing >> at them in red. They do not wake up when they are fully rested, but because >> they have been irritated into wakefulness by the honking of an alarm. >> >> >> >> There is no greater wrath I have experienced from my fellow human beings >> than disobeying the clock and its regimentations. I wonder if it is >> similar to the fuss that proto whales and dolphins encountered from proto >> meerkats and clock-makers. >> >> >> >> -Chance >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 1:38 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> .....Just one more thing that bears repeating. There is no Central Theory >> of biology, which is why you (Gregg) and I share the goal of providing such >> for psychology as a biologic discipline. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:22 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> ......you may or may not realize that most of the treatments for organic >> diseases today merely make the symptoms go away, but don't address the >> actual etiology because we don't know what it is, nor are we rewarded for >> such knowledge when technology can mask the disease. This is very bad >> science that will blow up in our faces like a time bomb in my opinion. I >> have been criticized by my research colleagues for thinking that cures are >> possible anymore. I think that the reason for this is because we don't >> really understand the basic causes of organic diseases in the way that the >> evolutionary perspective offers. By looking at the problems from their >> appearance instead of their etiology we may be serving Managed Care, but >> not society. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 2:01 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Modern biology remains descriptive, post-dictive, non-mechanistic and >> non-predictive. It only appears to be effective because it is associated >> with the actual mechanisms involved. Look at the story of ulcer, which was >> thought to be due to stress for centuries. Turns out its caused by H >> Pilori, a gut bacterium, and sure the infection can be brought on by >> stress, but that's not the primary cause. And all the money spent on cancer >> research and treatment for a disease we don't know the cause of. By >> analogy, biology is where chemistry and physics were as alchemy and >> astrology. So for example, the human genome was predicted to be at least >> 100,000 genes.....last I looked we are down to 19,000 and counting. Biology >> and medicine remain associations and correlations, whereas the way that I >> have reduced evolution to cell-cell communication, ascribing to the First >> Principles of Physiology, diseases can now be seen as cellular >> maladaptations, not gene mutations. Only ~3% of human genetic diseases are >> Mendelian (1 gene,=1 disease); the other 97% are probably epigenetic. Other >> than trauma and infectious disease, *medicine based on biology is not >> predictive*. Why do you think that the breakthroughs in medicine have >> been counterintuitive and serendipitous, almost without exception? The only >> discipline in medicine that is rational is infectious disease because we >> know what causes it, so we can use Koch's Postulates to diagnose and treat >> it. You know the old saw about the guy who is given a clean bill of health >> by his Cardiologist, and walks out of the office and drops dead of a >> massive coronary. >> >> I created a clinical laboratory at Brigham and Women's Hospital, the >> teaching hospital for Harvard Medical School in 1976. It was dedicated to >> predicting whether newborns had mature lungs or not, the rate-limiting >> factor for survival at birth. I devised a sensitive and accurate >> biochemical test that was 97% predictive because we knew that Respiratory >> Distress Syndrome, the disease the Kennedy baby died of in 1962, was due to >> lung surfactant deficiency. The test was published as the lead article in >> the New England Journal of Medicine in September, 1976. When I left Harvard >> in 1991 the lab was performing 5,000 tests for lung development annually, >> whereas conventional labs do about 200 tests. Fast forward to 2008. I get a >> phone call from one of my former lab technicians who is now the Pathologist >> in charge of all of the biochemical testing at Brigham and Women's Hospital >> (it's a long story). He tells me that he is being forced to change the lung >> maturity testing from the biochemical assay I developed in 1976 to a >> faster, cheaper, but highly inaccurate method I am quite familiar with (so >> the hospital could make more money because the assay is not as labor >> intensive). In telling me this, he says that the only tests in the entire >> suite of tests run in his labs are my assay and the assays for heart >> enzymes that indicate whether and how intense an heart attack was. All of >> the other tests are confirmatory, not predictive. This is the state of the >> art in 'evidence-based' medicine. I maintain that if medicine were not >> essential for society we wouldn't be expending such huge amounts of money >> on such a non-scientific discipline. >> >> >> As I have said before, the difference between Darwinian and Epigenetic >> evolution is like the difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian Gravity >> Theory, the former being descriptive, the latter mechanistic. So Newtonian >> physics describes how bodies attract one another, but does not fit with >> Relativity Theory. Einsteinian Gravity Theory, on the other hand, is >> consistent with Relativity Theory, explaining that gravity is the result of >> deformation of the fabric of space-time. allowing for a cohesive way of >> thinking about physics rather than anecdotes. Based on Occam's Razor, or >> parsimony, the Einsteinian perspective is correct because it is the >> simplest, most parsimonious way understanding the two ways of explaining >> the same phenomenon. The same would be the case for Darwinian vs Epigenetic >> evolution as I have described it. Genes are not what sense changes in the >> environment that signal for evolutionary change, cells are. You may argue >> that what I have described is the same as Darwinian evolution in that even >> 'internal selection' will ultimately comply with survival of the fittest, >> but its not about the adults selecting one another for reproduction, and >> the number of offspring being the measure of evolutionary success, which >> are proxies for what actually occurs during evolution. it's the quality of >> the fit with the environment as determined by the phenotype interacting >> with the environment to collect epigenetic marks that is the mechanism that >> underlies adaptation. So it's really 'apples and oranges' when it comes to >> Darwinian v Epigenetic evolution. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> So what, exactly, are you saying about the modern evolutionary synthesis? >> Are you saying it is incomplete or are you saying it is completely wrong? >> >> >> >> I just finished the book, *The Gene: An Intimate History*. A great book, >> IMO, that describes the enormous developments in biology over the past 150 >> years or so. The fundamental point of the book is that the merger of >> Darwin’s theory of natural selection with the science of genetics led to >> huge advances in our understanding. That seems to be a justifiable >> statement to me. >> >> >> >> Are you saying that this is all a mirage? That the whole foundation of >> modern biology is *completely* misguided? If so, this feels hard for me >> to believe. It seems much more palatable to say that it is incomplete. How >> can we possibly explain all the progress that has been made? Granted the >> picture might change quite fundamentally as we pull in cell bio-physiology >> and other insights (e.g., perhaps analogous to how quantum mechanics and >> general relativity changed our understanding of physics). But you seem >> dismissive here of cornerstones of biological knowledge. Can you help me >> sort that out? >> >> >> Best, >> G >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Saturday, February 24, 2018 12:10 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Dear ToKers >> >> >> >> Sure, be glad to expand on my approach to evolutionary biology. I have >> never bought in to random mutation and Natural Selection in principle, both >> because as a developmental cell biologist, I know that mutations are not >> readily incorporated into the gene pool; in fact just the opposite, they >> cause still births and abortions. And Natural Selection is a metaphor, not >> a mechanism, so how can it be tested experimentally. Furthermore, we know >> that processes of evolution are reversible based on work by Jean Guex on >> Ammonites, for example, showing empirically that such invertebrates were >> impacted by environmental changes, causing them to revert to earlier stages >> in their development and phylogeny, indicating that the processes that >> generated the developmental/phylogenetic changes could not have been random >> because there would be know 'trail' in a random event, so consequently >> there must be some organizing principle(s) that determined those changes in >> order to allow them to recapitulate the process. And work in my laboratory >> has shown that chronic lung disease is actually 'reverse evolution' when >> seen at the cellular-molecular level. What we see pathologically are >> step-by-step reversal of the developmental and phylogenetic changes that >> formed the alveoli of the lung under physiologic stress due to various >> agents- mechanical, oxidative, bacterial. Just to be clear, I have made the >> case for 'internal selection' through remodeling of structure and function. >> Under stress to tissues they generate Radical Oxygen Species (ROS) due to >> the shear force on the microvasculature....the cells involved in the >> affected structure will mutate due to the production of the ROS, and >> because of the prevailing homeostatic control, will remodel the >> structure/function until they come up with a new cytoarchitecture that >> doesn't produce ROS any longer....which is what we refer to as evolution >> (hope that was clear.....it's also referred to as the Baldwin Effect). As >> for the First Principles of Physiology concept, based on the cell-cell >> signaling mechanisms known to determine the development and phylogeny of >> the lung, I was able to trace the process of alveolar evolution from the >> swim bladder of fish forward to amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals in >> a step-wise fashion. From there, the trail becomes somewhat more difficult >> to follow backwards because there hasn't been a systematic study of >> organisms prior to vertebrates, assuming that their physiology wasn't >> pertinent (WRONG), but we know that the skin is the most primitive organ of >> gas exchange, so using knowledge of skin development and phylogeny offered >> the means of tracing the gas exchange mechanism all the way back to the >> unicellular cell membrane. That was achieved in large part by recognizing >> the central importance of lipids throughout the process, starting with the >> exploitation of cholesterol in the cell membranes of eukaryotes (organisms >> with a nuclear membrane), our ancestors, facilitating gas exchange by >> thinning out the cell membrane, culminating in the mammalian lung with the >> use of cholesterol (and other lipids) to maintain the structure and >> function of the alveolus by synthesizing and secreting lung surfactant into >> the thin walled alveolar space, reducing surface tension, preventing >> collapse of the alveolus upon exhalation (called atelectasis). As proof of >> principle, if you delete the cholesterol synthetic mechanism from the >> alveolar cells that make the lung surfactant, the embryonic lung >> compensates by forming more of the connective tissue cells >> (lipofibroblasts) that evolutionarily facilitated the evolution of the lung >> from the swim bladder. As for the concept of First Principles of >> Physiology- namely negative entropy (Free Energy), chemiosmosis (bioenergy >> to sustain negative entropy) and homeostasis (to monitor the capacity of >> the organism to adapt to an ever-changing environment)- those three >> elements are the essentials for maintaining and perpetuating life. Those >> elements evolved due to the self-referential, self-organizational nature of >> life, emerging from the Cosmic Singularity/Big Bang, the recoil caused by >> Newton's Third Law of Motion- every action having an equal and opposite >> reaction- giving rise to both physical (Black Holes, Stellar Evolution) and >> chemical (balanced chemical equations) phenomena, as well as to life >> itself, beginning with the unicell. As a reality check, all of this relates >> to Hughlings Jackson, the 19th Century Neurologist's observation that >> dissolution of brain structures due to various brain diseases are >> characterized by the reversal of the order in which various brain >> structures appeared during development/phylogeny. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 24, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> John, >> >> Thanks very much for this summary of your work. As you note, I have >> been fascinated to learn about your perspective since November. I was >> wondering if you could share some how you see your work in relationship to >> the modern evolutionary synthesis, the idea that biological complexity >> evolves as a function of natural selection operating on genetic >> combinations through time. >> >> >> >> Over the course of my study, I have came to see that biology consists of >> three big ideas: 1) natural selection; 2) genetics, and 3) cell >> bio-physiology. And one of the reasons I have been drawn to your work is >> that, prior to meeting you, I too had (a more intuitive) sense that cell >> physiology was not really woven into the picture. Your work clearly does >> this. However, I still am sometimes a little unclear on where your ideas of >> first principles of physiology and related concepts stands in relation to >> the modern synthesis. Can you say a bit about that? >> >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion [mailto: >> [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 22, 2018 2:41 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Dear ToKers >> >> >> >> Dear ToKers, >> >> Gregg has asked me to introduce myself in anticipation of my contribution >> to the April meeting. I am a Professor of Pediatrics, Ob-Gyn and >> Evolutionary Medicine at UCLA. I have a PhD in Experimental Medicine from >> McGill University, my first Faculty position was at Harvard Medical School, >> then at U Maryland, and now at UCLA. >> >> >> >> I began an email correspondence with Gregg several months ago, finding >> common ground between us in our mutual desire to bring new order to both >> psychology and biology/medicine. My current perspective emerged via the >> realization that I could exploit the cell biology of embryonic development >> and phylogeny (my research career) to trace the evolution of the mammalian >> lung back to its unicellular origins. But when I turned to the evolution >> literature on developmental biology, or EvoDevo, there was literally *no >> cell biology*, initially due to a historic glitch caused by the absence >> of cell science to propel evolutionary biology in the 19th century; so >> instead the evolutionists embraced genetics, and never let go. But cell >> biology underpins all of contemporary biology and medicine. I have made >> efforts since that realization to introduce my cell biologic perspective on >> evolutionary biology to the evolution of physiologic traits such as the >> lung, kidney, skin and bone. >> >> >> >> There are certain key concepts that have helped me to recapitulate >> physiologic evolution from the unicellular state forward, primarily the >> principle of cell-cell communication mediated by growth factors and their >> receptors as the mechanism for embryologic structure and function, to which >> I have contributed beginning in the early 1970s. That, in combination with >> the observation that evolution is a series of pre-adaptations or >> exaptations or co-options, offering the opportunity to see the >> interrelationships between different physiologic adaptations based on >> cell-cell communication mechanisms. But above all, the theory that the >> cellular internalization of external factors in the environment such as >> ions, gases, heavy metals, bacteria, gravitational forces, >> compartmentalizing them and making them useful as physiologic traits is key >> to understanding the origins of life, not as the Anthropic Principle that >> sees us *in this environment*, but rather the realization that *we are >> ‘of’ this environment. The **“*Endosymbiotic Theory*”* can be understood >> based on the unicellular origins of life and the subsequent cell-cell >> communication mechanisms that fostered complicated physiology of >> multicellular organisms. >> >> >> >> I mention all of this because I am of the opinion that all of the organs >> of the body, including the brain/perceptual consciousness evolved in tandem >> with the visceral organs. For example, there was a big breakthrough in >> understanding the evolution of the brain back in 2003 (Holland ND. Early >> central nervous system evolution: an era of skin brains? Nat Rev Neurosci. >> 2003 Aug;4(8):617-27) when Holland showed that there was a continuum from >> the central nervous system of worms to vertebrates based on its >> phylogenetic origins in the skin, or the skin-brain hypothesis. The skin is >> a highly underappreciated organ, which was hypothesized to be the origin of >> all complicated physiology in vertebrates (Torday and Rehan. Evolution, the >> Logic of Biology. Wiley-Blackwell, 2017). >> >> >> >> It is here that I share interests with the folks on this lis. I know >> Gregg has become quite interested in the view of the human as an extended >> cell and the braiin as the skin, folded inward. I have been able to exploit >> the idea that the first cell evolved from the immersion of lipids in water, >> both components coming from the frozen asteroids that pelted the early >> Earth before there was an atmosphere that could oxidize them. But that >> raises the question as to what was the basis for the spontaneous formation >> of lipid-based protocells? Traditionally, that has been attributed to the >> self-referential, self-organizational properties of life, giving rise to >> the First Principles of Physiology (FPP), which were generated by the >> protocell defined by its lipid membrane, distinguishing the internal and >> external ‘environments’. The FPP are constituted by negative entropy, or >> negative Free Energy within the cell, chemiosmosis, the most primitive way >> of generating bioenergy, intracellular membranes partitioning negative and >> positive ions on either side of them to generate an electrical current to >> sustain negentropy, and homeostasis as the monitoring mechanism for the >> interrelationship between the entropy within and outside of the cell. >> >> >> >> I have hypothesized that the origin of self-referential self-organization >> was the Singularity of the Big Bang, given that for every action there is >> an equal and opposite reaction (Newton’s Third Law of Motion). With that >> cellular molecular mechanistic linkage from contemporary physiology, >> referring all the way back to its origins in the Singularity/Big Bang, I >> have speculated that that is the origin and continuum of Consciousness >> itself, or the Hard Problem (David Chalmers), how we ‘know that we know’. >> Hameroff and Penrose have speculated that the brain integrates information >> through the microtubules of the cytoskeleton of neurons. Yet all cells have >> cytoskeletons, so it is feasible that there is integration of the somatic >> and CNS microtubules, which Head and Holmes [1911], and more recently >> Haggard and Wolpert referred to as "Disorders of Body Scheme?" >> >> The other breakthrough idea that may form common ground between >> physiology and psychology is the concept of the ‘Phenotype as Agent’ (Phenotype >> as Agent for Epigenetic Inheritance. >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pubmed_27399791&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9b6-Whll2uErOHRlZZa8ChznUHOERyKe4VKjG2ay8IM&s=0WNA0rZjxBg3g7BZYjz7NwLopdPMNFoaiEOI3van09U&e=> >> Torday JS, Miller WB. Biology (Basel). 2016 Jul 8;5(3)). That notion >> emerged from the hypothesis that the unicell was the first Niche >> Construction (NC), NC being the concept that organisms generate their own >> immediate environments. So by combining endosymbiosis with NC, >> hypothesizing that the unicell internalized its environment (The Cell as >> the First Niche Construction. >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pubmed_27136594&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9b6-Whll2uErOHRlZZa8ChznUHOERyKe4VKjG2ay8IM&s=NyrSjKZhogyEQf8D8Kz05MmildVpKMLOmoRbTJ8GJdc&e=> >> Torday JS. Biology (Basel). 2016 Apr 28;5(2)) as described above, that >> the process of evolution can be seen as a continuum from its origins to >> present day physiology, consciousness being the manifestation of that >> process at the level of being aware of one’s surroundings, both internal >> and external. >> >> Just to be more concrete, as mentioned, the cytoskeleton may act as the >> structure within the cell that acts to communicate between cells throughout >> the body. Penrose has shown that anesthetics bind to the catalytic site >> within tubulin, inhibiting its formation, linking the cytoskeleton to >> consciousness. And when yeast, primitive unicellular relatives of >> vertebrates, are put in zero gravity they lose their abilities to polarize >> (unaware of up/down/left/right) and cannot reproduce due to collapse of >> their cytoskeleton. So depriving this organism of its sense of gravity >> renders it dissociated from its ‘consciousness’ of its surroundings, i.e. >> it is unconscious. Thus the putative link between the cytoskeleton, >> consciousness and Cosmic Consciousness. >> >> This way of thinking about the continuum from physiology to our immediate >> perceptual consciousness of being, to the Consciousness of the Cosmos, >> conventionally referred to as something greater than ourselves, as the >> product of the iterative internalization of the environment, or the >> endosymbiosis referred to above, offers an opportunity to understand >> these processes mechanistically. And as I have proposed to Gregg, the >> ‘joints’ in his ToK can be understood as part and parcel of the same >> continuum mechanistically, merging his scheme with mine. For example, I >> have previously used the cell-molecular approach to ‘predict’ the evolution >> of endothermy (A central theory of biology. >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pubmed_25911556&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9b6-Whll2uErOHRlZZa8ChznUHOERyKe4VKjG2ay8IM&s=H-CqJb-JiKg0wEsfV0Zyab7VRT69LWebGj5yeqZJB8I&e=> >> Torday JS. Med Hypotheses. 2015 Jul;85(1):49-57), largely based on the >> opposite effects of physiologic stress on ‘fight or flight’ versus >> meditation/hibernation. Such ideas may help to further elucidate the nature >> of consciousness, and the continual line from the Bigh Bang, through the >> FPP of the unicell, all the way to this email exchange.....Please don't >> hesitate to comment/critique......Best, John Torday >> >> ############################ >> >> 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-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