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