John, 
  This is cool. On thought about word usage. I think that much scientific work is involved in getting the basic description right. It might not be experimentally tested,  which is another layer, but I would say that much of the ToK is about getting the right description down. Of course, if there are ways of achiveving experimental angles, all the better in terms of our depth of knowledge and confidence.

G


Sent from my Verizon 4G LTE smartphone


-------- Original message --------
From: JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 3/1/18 5:21 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The evolution of associative learning: A factor in the Cambrian explosion

Hello ToKers, I wanted to comment on Jason Bessey's post regarding the paper on the evolution of associative learning by way of 'constructive criticism'. On the one hand, the paper is a well developed hypothesis describing the putative evolution of a key trait in vertebrate evolution. On the other hand, I don't know how to test it scientifically, which is essential to evidence-based knowledge. Given that the paper appeared in a 'theory-based Journal', and that Darwinian evolution assumes random mutations, the authors weren't held to account for the mechanism involved other than to cite Baldwin or West-Eberhard. And so as not to sound negative, I have alternatively considered the fundamental interrelationship between my hypothesis regarding the evolution of warm bloodedness (endothermy/homeothermy) and Stephen Porges's Polyvagal Theory (see attached). Both have in common the role of physiologic stress causing both the evolution of control of body temperature and the phylogenetic changes in the Sympathetic Nervous System, respectively. And suffice it to say that there are specific molecular homologies between these two major evolutionary progressions and the effect of environmental stress via the cholinergic mechanism (I don't want to get bogged down in the alphabet soup of molecular physiology, so I will respectfully refrain from doing so unless someone's interested in that?). In short, I am saying that without such a reduction to cell biology as the basis for phenotypic evolution of associative learning, the description of the mere description is counter-productive IMO because it is untestable and unrefutable 'just so story'. And at this point, as a 'reality check', I would like to point out that there is a fine balance between the effect of catecholamines on learning versus the fight or flight mechanism that could be discussed in the context of physiologic evolution starting with the unicellular organism and culminating in consciousness as the ultimate selection pressure.

Again, I use this as a talking point for how to potentially advance our discussion of the ToK.

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:34 PM, nysa71 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
############################

To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:TOK-SOCIETY-L-SIGNOFF-[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