I want to chime in quickly and say that as I'm keeping up with the articles and discussions here, I'm doing quite a few double and triple takes.  John, I was wrong about Friston's first name, and so we were in fact talking about the same Karl Friston in our discussions.  I am very much a fan of Hobson and Friston's Bayesian brain model, and their temperature homeostasis model.  In my conceptual dissertation on dreams, I showed that Freud, Hobson, and Friston think of the brain in the same way, and in the way that you are articulating here:

"consciousness is assimilation of the environment as physiology, interpreted by our nervous system as consciousness."

I am not out to make a point that "Freud was first," but more that when two opposing camps actually agree on something a century apart, that we should consider that a sign post towards something worth looking at closely.  

The brain cooling hypothesis is one that I am attracted to conceptually, but I did not have enough time to research it enough to endorse it strongly in my own research.  I had to "earmark it" for later.  So thus my double take that you, John, have published on this. 

I feel that this discussion and these conceptualizations are highly relevant to the current situation we find ourselves in.  The Bayesian Brain model/the UT/Freud/Torday model would suggest that the individual self is attempting to expand its awareness in order to account for the changes in the environment, but at the same time is driven towards simpler algorithms for processing the increased data and knowledge needing to be considered. 

Freud (and then later Hobson and Friston) talk about surprise as being inherently aversive to the organism, thus the drive to be able to predict what's going to happen next.  However, as experiences accrue, so do the proliferation of  "if - then" possibilities that the brain must calculate.  Just like a computer will heat up if the system is overclocked, so the runaway brain theoretically becomes at risk for free energy spillage within the system, thus creating  neuro-associative damage.  I think of this like the water drip torture, where water is dripped on the face at random intervals.  The increasing anticipation of the next drop is said to lead to insanity (See Gregg's behavioral shut down model here:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201604/the-behavioral-shutdown-theory-depression)

The tension is thus that it is more pleasurable to live life in a state of reflexive certainty, but once we become aware that our reflexes do not account for the total free energy in the environment, we feel the tug to incorporate more environment into our physiology.  "Why, oh why, didn't I take the blue pill," or said another way:  "ignorance is bliss."

The solution to this tension between the desire to "take it easy" versus the anxious urge to anticipate the environment is the formation of simpler algorithmic models that consider all of the known variables, and thus allow the self to maintain certainty across the most situations possible.  This resolves the dialectical tension between death anxiety (which results from uncertainty) and the pleasure principle (the retention of optimal energy homeostasis).

Gregg's Behavioral Investment Theory is the best psychological model for this that I have encountered, and is fully compatible with everything that I'm reading so far from you, John.  

I need to continue to read the articles you've sent out carefully, though I will shoot from the hip now and say that your model seems theoretically rich at the domain of "Life" and then thins out at the level of Mind and Culture.  

Have you looked closely at P - M => E  ?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201306/perceptions-motives-and-emotions-control-theory-model

By the way, if you want to translate this Western frame into a more Eastern one, then every time you hear the word "Chi" and "energy" just think of it in terms of the Bayesian brain model, where perfect "Chi" flow is simply a 1 - 1 ratio of adaptive reflexivity between self and environment. 


-Chance













On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 6:30 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
To Gregg and the ToK community, I am totally empathetic to Gregg's frustration with the field of psychology because I have come to the same point in my coping with Biology/Evolution/Biomedical Research. Like Gregg, I have come to the realization that we are merely doubling-down on collecting factoids, assuming that if we haven't figured the problem out yet we just need more data (or what is commonly held to be the case in the field of Informatics; the fallacy is that biology, like psychology, is not a closed system, the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, i.e. some other paradigm is needed). We need a paradigm shift in both biology and psychology, and Gregg has made a strong and organized case for his Tree of Knowledge. I, in turn, have offered that the 'joints' in his schematic are the mechanisms that have facilitated the progression from the Singularity to Matter to Life to Mind (in brief). In my reduction of the problem to cell biology and communication I have been able to work backwards from what we think of as complex (actually complicated) physiology to the unicell, and from there back to the Singularity/Big Bang. That progression, in the forward direction, has been accomplished by the internalization of the environment (Endosymbiosis Theory), de facto encompassing the Cosmos, or actually as much of it as we need to survive (which is just enough). So with that perspective, I have deduced that what we think of as consciousness is assimilation of the environment as physiology, interpreted by our nervous system as consciousness. It is like Philip Johnson-Laird's "Mental Models" concept, referenced in the New Yorker article that was circulated among the ToK community a couple of days ago, entitled "Are we already living in virtual reality?". What is missing in that perspective is the connection to the physiology that I offer in my mechanistic approach. So in this synthesis there is, IMHO, opportunity for a more holistic way of thinking about health, both physiologic and mental that may buoy all boats? With all due respect to other opinions. So, for example, I offer a segue to Chance's lecture on Dreams in a paper we published on the role of brain cooling/REM sleep as a way of understanding the evolution of mind (see attached).

On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Nancy,

 

  Thanks so much for your note. It was great having you here. You offer an interesting and helpful question regarding “building knowledge within the ToK System.” This is a little hard to answer because I think there are many different communities that I am trying to address and the emphasis, tone and tenor varies a bit depending on the audience. For example, I am trying to connect with Big Picture philosophies and movements like Big History, I am also trying to get my vision out to mental health practitioners, and am trying to narrate the need for the system to lay people.

 

For the purposes of what follows, let me focus on how I am approaching the field of scientific/academic psychology (as separate from professional practitioners, which I am approaching from a different angle). I am attaching a presentation I gave at the last Theoretical and Philosophical conference as part of a President’s initiative on Re-envisioning Psychology. It invites psychologists to consider moving from Empirical Psychology to a Metaphysical Empirical Psychology.  

 

First, I attempt to point out in what I hope is a systematic and clear way, that the field’s concepts and categories matter every bit as much as empirical data. Metaphysics in this context refers to the concepts and categories we use to carve up reality.

 

Second, I point out that the concepts and categories in current usage are obviously flawed. I show very clearly that we do not have good working definitions or shared conceptual maps of the field’s central terms such as: psychology, behavior, mind, or human consciousness (and the animal/person relation).

 

  Third, I point out that we have been pre-paradigmatic as a science since our inception. This relates to the problem of the definition of psychology because we have not had a system that has allowed a clear enough map of the field of inquiry. Together, points 2 & 3 document THE PROBLEM OF PSYCHOLOGY, which I argue no psychologist can ignore in good faith.

 

  Fourth, because mainstream academic psychology has doubled down on empirical methods and data collection we are looking in the wrong direction; more rigorous empirical studies will not solve conceptual problems.

 

  If you agree with these elements, you agree that there is a problem of psychology, then it follows deductively that we need to deeply consider a new conceptual and meta-theoretical approach to the field.

 

Then I offer the ToK System as a system that can solve both the metaphysical and metatheoretical issues that the field faces. And I argue it does these things far better than any other system, thus we should take it seriously. Indeed, if we are to be psychologists of good faith, we are compelled to take it seriously or advocate for a better conceptual system that can situate what we mean by the “field of psychology.”

 

  The problem I face is in the diagnosis of the problems above. That is, in response to the problem of psychology, mainstream psychology has adopted an “eclectic empiricism” as the modern paradigm. Thus, most psychologists have no idea how to think about or assess a metaphysical/meta-theoretical solution. As such, academics in the field look at my work, are overwhelmed, don’t see “methods and data,” and then look the other way. After all, it is complicated to learn and is not affirming of the direction the field is headed in. So, the natural response is to ignore the proposal, which is more or less what happened.

 

  In sum, I do not consider my arguments intuitions. I have no problem about intuitions (I have had many intuitions that have led me to this), but this is every bit as much about clear argumentation as empirical research on cognitive dissonance (or anything else). It is very clear and logical and systematic. It is just is a different aspect of the scientific enterprise than most academic psychologists are trained in, and thus there is enormous inertia that must be overcome to get the field to pay attention.

 

  So, I guess the challenge has been, which I have not solved, is how do you get academic psychologists to wake up to the problem of psychology and realize they need to take it seriously? I have not been able to find an effective way of communicating that message so that it gains traction with large numbers of folks, but that is how I see my journey, at least within that audience.


Best,
Gregg 

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]u> On Behalf Of Nancy Link
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 10:29 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Thanks to all who made the conference a success

 

Dear Gregg,

 

I returned feeling upbeat and very stimulated intellectually. It was good to get out of the confines of my Toronto home office and experience the welcoming warmth of you, the other ToKers and the whole JMU community. THANK YOU!!!

 

One thing I have been wondering about is how you envision building knowledge within your ToK system?  I think that we have strong negative reactions to scientific thought as it is currently practiced, but we may have different ways of reacting to that negative feeling.  My feeling is that scientific thought has taken over too much of the dialogue.  Experts use the “data shows that…”argument to silence opposition. The truth is that the data seldom show anything with absolute clarity.  It is not surprising that ordinary people have given up on science and stopped listening.  My solution to this problem is to try to contain science by putting it in balance with a narrative.  I believe that the narrative (theory) can only be built using data. Once we have a narrative, we can use new data to refine or change the it, but without a narrative, we are at sea.

 

My impression of your negative reaction to the same reality is to blast through it with your strong and good intuitions about how things fit together. I like and trust your intuitions, but how do you argue to the outside world that your intuitions are better that theirs?

 

Nancy

 

 

 

From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]u> on behalf of Gregg Henriques <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]u>
Date: Monday, April 16, 2018 at 10:30 AM
To: "[log in to unmask]U" <[log in to unmask]U>
Subject: Thanks to all who made the conference a success

 

Dear TOK Society,

 

  I am writing to offer deep gratitude to all those who came and participated in the first ever TOK Society conference over the weekend. I thought the talks were splendid. The breadth of ideas covered was huge and yet they did seem to cohere around key themes and pointed to future directions for education, psychology and society at large. I also found the conversation on the back half of Friday to be very stimulating and demonstrated how thinking about big TOKs could illuminate powerful perspectives on real world issues.

 

 I will be in consultation with folks about next steps. One thing I would like to consider is having folks share their powerpoints on the list and perhaps have some time devoted to reviewing the talks and engaging in some exchange about them on this list.

 

Thanks again to everyone.


Best,
Gregg

___________________________________________

Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)


Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.

Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge

 

############################

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