Hi Brent,
This is great and points us toward future directions. I am with family for the next several days, and will be back in touch after the holiday cheer.
I hope everyone has a good break.
G
______________________________________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Director, C-I Doc Program
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:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge
________________________________
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 12:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New Vimio on Canonizer
Hi Folks,
Very exciting stuff.
Lots of good comments.
Lots of good questions, also. Even if I don't have all the answers, now, I'm sure there are answers to the best way to do all this. You guys are way over my head on a bunch of this stuff. Remember, all I have is a BS in computer science, with a minor on psychology. ;) So we need lots of help to figure out the best way to do all this.
For the "mind experts" canonizer, the field seemed quite obvious and well defined. It wasn't too much of a problem to create the "mind expert" canonizer topic where the peers in that field can rank each other (everyone lists there top 10 or more experts in that field) and so on.:
https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Mind-Experts/1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeqGJDEIY989lB4D1P1vALvZZTzjGyYwUn3uff_CUM&s=zAwiJw3P6C6uKz_uE_KOhgyAB-MnvJVDY755WLOz7dk&e=>
and
https://canonizer.com/topic/53-Mind-Experts/11<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_53-2DMind-2DExperts_11&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeqGJDEIY989lB4D1P1vALvZZTzjGyYwUn3uff_CUM&s=CA4rXd94QZjJlJihTtMsPAAmyG_oyazcCehd8ACLCTU&e=>
As far as how to deal with all the proponents of the supernatural, we seemed to have handled that quite well with the consciousness survey topic by creating the top supper camp called "Approachable Via Science" which most everyone supports and wants to create their camp underneath.
https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Approachable-Via-Science/2<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DApproachable-2DVia-2DScience_2&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeqGJDEIY989lB4D1P1vALvZZTzjGyYwUn3uff_CUM&s=PvbtoWl7Vo9PsPkVIY5o1nzfIVdM0GBbCszgVgBY0Qo&e=>
Who cares is there is something "supernatural" or whatever out there. As long as it is approachable via science, we can figure it out, take it apart, put it back together a million times better, grow it exponentially... - that is all I care about. If we can open a direct channel to god, or the spirit world, or whatever....
Oh, and please, if any of you experts could help out with the consciousness survey project, that would be a tremendous help. To date, we only have about 50 experts that have participated, so not a very large sample set. If you all could "canonize" your working hypotheses about the qualitative nature of consciousness, the explanatory gap and all that, in this theories of consciousness topic it would be great:
https://canonizer.com/topic/88-Theories-of-Consciousness/1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeqGJDEIY989lB4D1P1vALvZZTzjGyYwUn3uff_CUM&s=eX5V8_aKOsmFAw3rmkqeTkxA3vIBhbcTsCCfTzX3TmE&e=>
We may need to rearrange the entire camp structure to better make things, as you called it "canonical". Anything, including camp parents, and major camp structure reorganization, can be changes, as long as there is a majority consensus for the change. So keep that in mind, if you have any good ideas along those lines.
Also, if you could rank your top 10, or more best experts in this field, that would help (If you need help creating a new camp for anyone not yet in the list, let me know.)
https://canonizer.com/topic/81-Mind-Experts/1<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=nxeqGJDEIY989lB4D1P1vALvZZTzjGyYwUn3uff_CUM&s=zAwiJw3P6C6uKz_uE_KOhgyAB-MnvJVDY755WLOz7dk&e=>
Brent
On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 6:45 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
Brent/Gregg:
Fascinating project indeed . . . !!
I think that Gregg has correctly suggested that the "highest level"
division between metaphysical systems is between "natural-only" and
"supernatural." And, he is also correct that in the "natural"
category (minus the "supernatural") the current leader is "complexity
science."
However, the challenge (which we've been discussing on this list for a
while now) is whether the shift from "dead matter" to life (yes, I'd
put the problem one level below where Gregg places it) can adequately
be addressed by what is now "canonical" in complexity research? Gregg
says no and I think he's right about that.
I first encountered all this as an undergraduate in the late-60s,
majoring in evolutionary genetics -- long before there was a field
called "complexity." Then it was a debate over the 2nd Law of
Thermodynamics and how to account for life given these "iron-clad"
material laws. An "answer" was fudged but it never convinced me or
many other people.
From what I can tell, there was a "factional" fight at places like
the Santa Fe Institute over some aspects of this around 2005 and those
who wanted to deal with "levels" of complexity lost. Gregg's
"dimensions" would seem to fit in with that larger conflict in the
field -- which isn't widely known outside of those directly involved.
Another version of this happened in the late 19th-century with Georg
Cantor. He proposed a "solution" by inventing Transfinite Numbers
but, in the end, he went mad trying to get it acknowledged. He failed
and he cracked up.
Gregg has bravely entered into this fraught territory, perhaps with
some of the naivety of an intrepid explorer making his own map, which
is a quality I admire in him.
How does Canonizer deal with something fundamental that has a long
history like this and how do you assemble a "panel of experts" with
enough understanding and background to deal with the issues involved .
. . ??
Mark
P.S. The removal of the "supernatural" from this discussion is a
recent phenomenon. It was just 100 years ago that Max Weber declared
the "disenchantment of the world" in his "Science as a Vocation"
Munich lecture. Then it was called "positivism," from which "holism"
developed as a counter-argument. This has gotten pretty heated and
many careers have been made and broken based on these conflicts. So,
the lines have been drawn and re-drawn -- with much passion involved.
More recently, many have proposed that we are headed back to
re-including what "physics" cannot understand. In particular, the
"Marxist" Jurgen Habermas has declared that we are "post-secular."
The "post-modernists," like Alain Badiou &al, have been debating
various "theologies" for a decade or more. Many are convinced that
the simply "natural" approach has failed and doesn't cut it -- thus
Gregg's valiant effort to build a successful "meta-theory." Getting
some experts to look at this could be very enlightening, if done well.
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]<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]<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