Nancy, Thank you for your commentary! The information you have gathered that combines abstract thought, tool use, phylogeny, and child development is powerful and compelling perspective. I found myself curious about your view on, say, an ipad and iphone on early child development? From one broad perspective, early exposure to digital media is viewed as another human tool that we are adjusting to and using. From another perspective, we are being led astray from our inherent design in a way that violates what is natural. For example, Mark's suggestion that we turn it off (Mark please correct me if I am oversimplifying your view) may be pragmatically unrealistic if society becomes fundamentally reorganized around these technologies. Best wishes, -Chance On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Nancy Link <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I have a slightly different analysis of the emergence of culture. > > My argument Is that the structure of thought changed four times during > speciation events in our evolutionary history. The development of the > human child reflects those evolutionary changes. > The emergence of abstract thought appears in human children at about 11 > years of age.A feature of abstract thought is the ability to see the > properties of a system. Once abstract thought exists, the child’s thought > is no longer tied exclusively to concrete information. The child can use > abstract concepts to organize thinking. > > I argue that the same kind of thinking emerged in the late grade hominins > perhaps 600,000 years ago and the evidence for it is found the emergence of > Mode 3 flake tools from prepared cores. These hominins rather than focusing > on the tool itself (ie a hand axe) could conceptualize the problem of > of how to efficiently produce a number of tools using the same procedure. > I argue that this reflects the emergence of abstract thought. Homo sapiens > evolved a more complex version of this kind of thought and evidence of > their abilities is seen in Mode 4 and 5 tool technologies (blades and > microliths). > > I see the technology that you study as being produced by a compounding of > abstract thought. For example the invention of numbers is an abstract > concept. > > From my perspective, this kind of analysis is consistent with Gregg’s mind > to culture joint point. > > Cheers, > > Nancy > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Aug 15, 2018, at 10:51 AM, Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > Joe: > > > > Thanks -- these are indeed very basic questions . . . !! > > > > Since "human" in terms of this article means Homo Sapiens (i.e the > "standard" biological species), it would appear that *none* of Gregg's > "four dimensions" line-up. > > > > Homo Sapiens (the species, which is considered 200,000+ years old) -- > can't be described by "Mind" or "Culture" as I understand those terms in > Gregg's ToK system. Many other species also have "Mind," whereas > early-humans didn't have "Culture." > > > > We have spent a lot of time with Julian Jaynes (I was his student) and > Merlin Donald (with whom I have collaborated) at the Center. They both > describe a species which has "evolved" in psychological terms. For > instance, the biological species didn't gain the qualities that we would > recognize as "self-aware consciousness," which is required for "culture" > (or perhaps "civilization") until they invented *literacy* -- roughly 2500 > years ago. Yes, that's a technology (and none of us are born with it.) > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > amazon.com_Origins-2DModern-2DMind-2DEvolution- > 2DCognition_dp_0674644840&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSj > Odn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 2ploKyY1OKVM12Z_OiNRgoH4386b-4nu5obm3NOuDd0&s= > Ny8pMhJhdwQmSNEZp0fkvr1tDi1oxyksngoHXDZyVSA&e= > > > > Be generous and extent this back to the origins of agriculture &c and > you will only get to around 10,000BC (or sometime after the last ice-age.) > Still, that *cannot* be what we mean by Homo Sapiens (or any other > biological division yet discovered.) Plus, what did Plato and Aristotle > have to say about all this? > > > > Looking forward to your thoughts . . . <g> > > > > Mark > > > > P.S. This SA article comes from material in Leland's 2017 "Darwin's > Unfinished Symphony: How Culture Made the Human Mind," in which doesn't > cite Jaynes but mentions Donald twice in footnotes (but not in the > acknowledgements.) Btw, he seems to think that many animals have > "culture," probably confusing this term with what Gregg means by "mind." > > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > amazon.com_Darwins-2DUnfinished-2DSymphony-2DCulture-2DHuman_dp_ > 0691151180&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= > HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 2ploKyY1OKVM12Z_OiNRgoH4386b-4nu5obm3NOuDd0&s= > ZEjfUtat7OxBmDytIf9EoA8YL93keFoyLyh0L6RwMw4&e= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quoting Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>: > > > >> Dear Colleagues: > >> > >> > >> Scientific American arrived in the mail yesterday with the cover title: > "Humans: Why we're unlike any other species on the planet." I've attached a > file with a couple of the main articles for the list's consideration. There > are several others that flesh out other aspects of "being human." > Definitely worth acquiring a copy. > >> > >> > >> In any event, these types of articles lead directly to the kinds of > discussions I believe we're all interested in, especially in relation to > the ToK. Perhaps we can discuss some of the key claims of these articles to > clarify, critique, and advance our collective wisdom in regard to the joint > points and the implications for further ToK knowledge-building? I'll offer > some thoughts later on today (have to go to my 'day job' right now!), if > that would be helpful. But perhaps someone else would like to offer a few > thoughts to kick off some discussion. > >> > >> > >> All best regards, -Joe > >> > >> > >> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski > >> > >> Acting Academic Dean/Associate Academic Dean > >> > >> King’s University College at Western University > >> > >> 266 Epworth Avenue > >> > >> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3 > >> > >> Tel: (519) 433-3491 > >> > >> Fax: (519) 963-1263 > >> > >> Email: [log in to unmask] > >> > >> ______________________ > >> eiπ + 1 = 0 > >> > >> ________________________________ > >> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask] > edu> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> > >> Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2018 7:43:02 AM > >> To: [log in to unmask] > >> Subject: A proposal for the list > >> > >> > >> Dear List, > >> > >> > >> > >> I have spoken with some folks, and I would like to offer a proposal. > Please share reactions if you have them. > >> > >> > >> > >> My proposal is that our contributors frame their responses a bit so > that the audience can be clear about knowledge system they are operating > from. This request was triggered by Lonny’s reply to the behavioral > selection post. As I back channeled him, when I read it, like Jamie, I was > quite confused. It was definitely not the ToK/UTUA language system (i.e., > it characterized the meaning/empirical reference of mind, life, feeling, > etc. very differently). It became immediately clear in our back channel > exchange that, indeed, Lonny was operating off of a different metaphysical > system/language game. That is fine, of course, but if it is not clear, it > leads to confusion for the audience…very much along the lines if someone > started speaking French. > >> > >> > >> > >> My exchange with Lonny made explicit what has become, I think, a bit > of an issue for the list. That is, we are seeing lots of posts (which is > good) from individuals who are speaking from a number of different systems > (which is ok, but can be confusing). John’s First Principles of Physiology > and Mark’s McLuhan x Aristotle positions are two that are prominent. > Jamie’s Moral Apex is another (although it is not necessarily different > from the ToK/UTUA). With Lonny in the mix, plus the ToK/UTUA frame, that is > potentially five different systems of thought. That is a lot to keep track > of, increasing the likelihood of audience overload and tuning out. > >> > >> > >> > >> I propose a few things. First, I think it will help the audience if > the poster is clear what frame they are speaking from. Second, I think it > is fine that we have different version of reality that folks are operating > from. We are exploring (big) Theories Of Knowledge, after all. It is also > the case, however, that the ToK/UTUA frame is the “center of gravity” that > has served to attract the group as a whole. So, I think it would make sense > if that was considered the “default” and we should be primarily oriented to > it and if one is using a different frame, be clear about it in relation to > the ToK. I would also welcome more in-depth exploration of the ToK/UTUA in > relation to other frames or problems in general. For example, I thought > Joe’s comment about universities could have been a great “in” to explore > what the ToK/UTUA frame is getting at. > >> > >> > >> > >> In terms of examples about what I mean, I already mentioned that it > would have helped out if Lonny had started out his email via an > articulation of his position. Another example that came up yesterday was > the response by Mark to the entropic brain article, which he responded to > by saying, “it need not concern us too much. No, physics (and math) is > not where understanding begins.” I did not know who the “us” was, and, as > such, it did not sit quite right. However, if we knew the “us” meant Mark’s > paradigm that emphasizes McLuhan and formal metaphysics, then the “us” is > clearer. It is an interesting paradigm, no doubt. But that is the frame > over on his list (Center for Digital Life), and it is not the ToK/UTUA > frame, which as I mentioned to him in my brief reply, is fundamentally > about the assimilation and integration of knowledge systems. (The article > about brain, mind and entropy is very much connected to the ToK/UTUA > system. Indeed, the article was conceptually anchored to the Friston’s free > energy principle<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https- > 3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Free-5Fenergy-5Fprinciple&d=DwIF-w&c= > eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= > HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 6MBLeBRO0whD49q2mB7nzPpXxIizSjHEFIMJGIrMRPE&s= > sqlQV2CzWh6tIdmPbIv2HrLxZdDmTVBl5MRlgkDbkgQ&e=>, which Chance explored > some on is dissertation on dreams and the unified approach, so that is a > direct connection between the article and BIT). > >> > >> > >> > >> Anyway, those are some thoughts for the day. This is not intended to > be a powerplay or designed to diminish other voices so the light is only > shined on the ToK (Side note: In JH speak, this “disclaimer” is designed to > advertise my selflessness, as I behave selfishly ??…If you look for them, > such justification disclaimers happen all the time—and not just in others; > you will do them automatically as well), but rather it is intended to bring > some focus and clarity to these discussions. The goal is to help those who > are following have a sense of shared participation, clarity and cumulative > understanding, as opposed to experiencing the list as a rather chaotic > flood of ideas coming from a multitude of diverse perspectives with no > reference point for understanding. The whole point of the ToK/UTUA is to > NOT replicate the chaotic processes that are happening in the world out > there! > >> > >> > >> > >> Look forward to others’ thoughts if they have them. > >> > >> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwIF-w&c= > eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= > HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 6MBLeBRO0whD49q2mB7nzPpXxIizSjHEFIMJGIrMRPE&s=YENW_ > TcODlKyJyIe2FEImGIWVmPAofwvgbvolpG-RQI&e= > >> > >> > >> > >> Check out my webpage at: > >> > >> www.gregghenriques.com<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/ > url?u=http-3A__www.gregghenriques.com&d=DwIF-w&c= > eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r= > HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m= > 6MBLeBRO0whD49q2mB7nzPpXxIizSjHEFIMJGIrMRPE&s= > PUdguJDGaVyon1FQVV5K3rloEe7knjcgJ5ZdP-qQjeE&e=> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ############################ > >> > >> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto: > [log in to unmask]<mailto: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