Red:Redness::Synchronic:Diachronic:Descriptive:Empiric Is this helpful when seen in light of my reduction of evolution, physiology, homeostasis, consciousness, Consciousness and Cosmology? On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 4:14 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Brent et alia, I'll attempt to create a 'dialogue' by inserting my > responses into your email in brackets. > > So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way back > to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in. > > > > Ah, that all helps at least get me started better understanding all you > know. Also “Terminal Addition” is a new, very interesting and useful > concept. It is fun when we find ways to interface very diverse fields. > You know a lot of stuff I have no idea of. > > > [And you know a lot I don't too.....hope we can put our 'heads together'] > > > > I also wasn’t aware of the terms “synchronically” and “diachronically”, > but those terms help, immensely, with a notion I’ve been struggling with > how to describe. The original “Inverted spectrum” argument was formulated > by John Lock as “imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some > unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted.”. I now I > can point out the diachronic attribute of this argument, comparing the > times before and after you wake up with things being inverted. But that > throws all kinds of complicating issues into the argument, such as, does > your memory of red change also….?” So, I guess I can now more easily > encourage people to simplify things by thinking synchronically, > experiencing redness, together with a reference redness computationally > bound. Then redness changes to greenness, very different from the same > reference that has not changed. And there is also the absurd "inverted > spectrum" notion that people describe the qualia changing, but they > physics staying the same, which of course confuses everyone, significantly. > > > [As I was reading about the 'inverted spectrum' I was thinking about how > different organisms see in different ranges of the light spectrum, yet we > all exist in the same physical space. So isn't it a matter of adapting in > what ever way each organism does based on the nature of their physiology? > Are you familiar with David Bohm, the physicist. In his book "Wholeness and > the Implicate Order" he argues that what we think of as 'reality' is how > our subjectively evolved senses represent it to us, or what he refers to as > the Explicate Order. However, the actual reality exists in tandem as the > Implicate Order. My sense is that as a species we are moving further and > further away from the Explicate and closer and closer to the Implicate > Order over human history, aided by Science as the way in which we 'know > what we don't know'.] > > > > I may be mistaken, but you appear to be still missing another important > notion about the psychology of perception. Normally, we use the term “red” > in an ambiguous way, known as “naive realism”. We are born thinking there > is only one physical quality, the quality of the surface of the strawberry. > > > > But perception is about two sets of physical qualities: > > > > 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation, the > initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a strawberry reflects > 650 NM (red) light). > 2. The physical properties of the final results of the perception > process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our brain we > experience as *redness*. > > > > So, when you just use the term “red” it is hard to know which of the above > you are talking about. So, I use “red” for #1, and *redness* for #2. We > only know of #1, with abstract descriptions, like the word red. We have no > idea if the strawberry has a real physical quality, we should be > interpreting our abstract descriptions of the strawberry (like the word > red), as having. That is why in images like this, the strawberry is always > portrayed with black and white. Who's is the real redness? > > > [image: image.png] > > > > Many people, when they first realize this, it is a profound life changing > religious experience. I remember having this life changing experience in > an undergraduate class on AI. > > > [Perhaps what you are describing is a corollary of that Explicate to > Implicate progression? In fact, since my laboratory does epigenetic > research studying the inheritance of asthma from the environment, I have > changed my way of thinking about what 'phenotype' means. I don't think it > is the description of attributes, it is actually how epigenetic inheritance > acts to actively obtain what are called epigenetic 'marks' from the > environment. That is to say the way epigenetic inheritance occurs is > through the direct acquisition of those marks from the environment, which > then enter the organism and modify the DNA of the egg and sperm through an > unknown mechanism by which such marks are either retained or gotten rid of > during meiosis. The retained marks then alter the phenotype of the > offspring in ways that optimize the subsequent interactions of the > offspring with their environment. I can see how there could be an > epigenetic mechanism for transitioning from seeing red to seeing redness > via such a mechanism, for example] > > > > This provides a powerful explanation of phantom limb pain which you > mentioned. The pain isn’t in your toe #1, it is in your knowledge of your > toe, #2, which of course is in your brain. And when you amputate your toe, > you don’t amputate your knowledge of your toe, nor the pain, which still > exists in your brain #2, as a composite conscious experience. The pain > just no longer has a referent in realty, #1. So, the pain seems to be an > inaccurate phantom pain. > > > [This should also hold for the peripheral nervous system and all those > connections too, right?] > > > > This is like the way we have knowledge #2 of our skull, inside it’s > referent, our real skull, #1. We also have a knowledge of a “spirit” #2, > represented as residing inside our knowledge of our skull, looking out of > our knowledge of our eyes, again all composite #2 consciousness. Our > knowledge of our spirit #2, just doesn’t have a referent that ever existed > in #1 reality. > > [But all due respect, perhaps #1 and #2 are physiologic and cosmologic > levels, respectively, which when integrated due to their common origins in > the Singularity generate what we think of as mind. Spinoza said that the > mind is the brain's idea of the body. I think he was right but it was > inductive not deductive, whereas I am offering an evidence-based way to > think about the interrelationship between evolution, physiology and > Cosmology as one integrated whole] > > > I hope you are finding this as constructive as I am. We seem to have found > 'common ground'.....do you think we've hit on a way forward? > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 2:49 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way >> back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in. >> >> >> >> Ah, that all helps at least get me started better understanding all you >> know. Also “Terminal Addition” is a new, very interesting and useful >> concept. It is fun when we find ways to interface very diverse fields. >> You know a lot of stuff I have no idea of. >> >> >> >> I also wasn’t aware of the terms “synchronically” and “diachronically”, >> but those terms help, immensely, with a notion I’ve been struggling with >> how to describe. The original “Inverted spectrum” argument was formulated >> by John Lock as “imagine that we wake up one morning and find that for some >> unknown reason all the colors in the world have been inverted.”. I now I >> can point out the diachronic attribute of this argument, comparing the >> times before and after you wake up with things being inverted. But that >> throws all kinds of complicating issues into the argument, such as, does >> your memory of red change also….?” So, I guess I can now more easily >> encourage people to simplify things by thinking synchronically, >> experiencing redness, together with a reference redness computationally >> bound. Then redness changes to greenness, very different from the same >> reference that has not changed. And there is also the absurd "inverted >> spectrum" notion that people describe the qualia changing, but they >> physics staying the same, which of course confuses everyone, significantly. >> >> >> >> I may be mistaken, but you appear to be still missing another important >> notion about the psychology of perception. Normally, we use the term “red” >> in an ambiguous way, known as “naive realism”. We are born thinking there >> is only one physical quality, the quality of the surface of the strawberry. >> >> >> >> But perception is about two sets of physical qualities: >> >> >> >> 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation, >> the initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a strawberry >> reflects 650 NM (red) light). >> 2. The physical properties of the final results of the perception >> process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our brain we >> experience as *redness*. >> >> >> >> So, when you just use the term “red” it is hard to know which of the >> above you are talking about. So, I use “red” for #1, and *redness* for >> #2. We only know of #1, with abstract descriptions, like the word red. We >> have no idea if the strawberry has a real physical quality, we should be >> interpreting our abstract descriptions of the strawberry (like the word >> red), as having. That is why in images like this, the strawberry is always >> portrayed with black and white. Who's is the real redness? >> >> >> [image: image.png] >> >> >> >> Many people, when they first realize this, it is a profound life changing >> religious experience. I remember having this life changing experience in >> an undergraduate class on AI. >> >> >> >> This provides a powerful explanation of phantom limb pain which you >> mentioned. The pain isn’t in your toe #1, it is in your knowledge of your >> toe, #2, which of course is in your brain. And when you amputate your toe, >> you don’t amputate your knowledge of your toe, nor the pain, which still >> exists in your brain #2, as a composite conscious experience. The pain >> just no longer has a referent in realty, #1. So, the pain seems to be an >> inaccurate phantom pain. >> >> >> >> This is like the way we have knowledge #2 of our skull, inside it’s >> referent, our real skull, #1. We also have a knowledge of a “spirit” #2, >> represented as residing inside our knowledge of our skull, looking out of >> our knowledge of our eyes, again all composite #2 consciousness. Our >> knowledge of our spirit #2, just doesn’t have a referent that ever existed >> in #1 reality. >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 1:35 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Brent et alia, I would like to interject my replies in brackets, as if >>> we were having a conversation, as follows: >>> >>> >>> >>> I’m having troubles integrating what you are saying into my view of the >>> world. >>> >>> [I am not surprised, since mine is a contrarian perspective on >>> evolution, based on a cellular-molecular approach largely based on an >>> embyologic developmental approach based on cell-cell communications >>> mediated by soluble growth factors and receptors, not on reproductive >>> success of the adults due to Descent with Modification, Natural Selection >>> and Survival of the Fittest, all of which are metaphors that cannot be >>> tested experimentally, nor have they been. My approach, on the other hand >>> is totally based on hard evidence for development of structure and >>> function, including genetic manipulations showing the causal relationships.] >>> >>> Things like “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it” >>> doesn’t seem to fit. For me, the big problem is that people tend to think >>> of “Consciousness” (or consciousness?) as a singular thing. Pan-psychism, >>> at best talks about elemental matter having “proto-psychism” or something. >>> >>> >>> >>> To me, Consciousness, free will, self-awareness, intentionality, love... >>> (and consciousness?) are all composite things composed of lots of stuff. >>> To me, qualia or physical qualities are elemental things out of which all >>> these composite things are constructed. When we are consciously aware of a >>> strawberry, we have knowledge represented by elemental redness and >>> greenness physical qualities, representing the strawberry. Physical >>> qualities are elemental standalone things, which can be computationally >>> bound together to become our composite knowledge of the strawberry. >>> >>> >>> >>> [It only seems like such things can be computed because they are >>> described synchronically in the same space and time. However, it is only >>> when you identify the underlying mechanisms involved diachronically across >>> space and time that the true nature of Nature is revealed. And by the way, >>> the same is true for chemistry. The genius of Mendeleev’s Periodic Table of >>> Elements was that he took into account the chemical reactions and products >>> for any given element in order to position it, offering experimental data >>> that transcend space and time. I have done the same for evolutionary >>> biology by invoking experimental evidence for the evolution of physiologic >>> traits] >>> >>> >>> >>> The computational binding which provides “situational awareness” of >>> what we need to do to pick the red things, while avoiding the green things >>> is also something additional. Would I be correct in thinking that matter >>> which has a redness quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it? >>> >>> [Well this is a complicated issue, as we both know. I would like to >>> start by thanking you for not just dismissing me out of hand because I am >>> coming from outter space, literally, to understand what Consciousness >>> actually constitutes. I honestly had no intention of grappling with such >>> questions, but my research of 50 years duration dragged me down this >>> ‘rabbit hole’. But in saying that I have to now get up on my soap box and >>> state that we are at a stage in human knowledge and science when >>> instruments can no longer provide answers to big questions like *what >>> is evolution?, What is Consciousness?, What is Free Will?* I think we >>> need to take the huge volumes of information we are generating and exploit >>> them to understand such big picture issues. Particularly because Biology >>> remains a *descriptive science*, unlike Chemistry and Physics, which >>> have central theories and Laws. All biology has is the dogma of >>> “DNA-RNA-Protein”. As a result, for example, there is literally no >>> experimental evidence for evolutionary biology other than the limited >>> examples that I and my colleagues have provided. >>> >>> >>> >>> But back to your question about whether matter which has a redness >>> quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it? I would resoundingly >>> say ‘YES”. The consensus is that life evolved by endogenizing environmental >>> factors that historically posed an existential threat, such as heavy >>> metals, ions, gases, bacteria. Heavy metals are a prime example because >>> iron, which is a powerful oxidizing agent, was endogenized and made >>> physiologically useful by incorporating it into heme protein for oxygen >>> transport in red blood cells. There are classic examples for all of the >>> others too, but the ‘iron is our friend’ example will suffice, I think. But >>> of course we’re more interested in multicellular organisms like ourselves >>> when it comes to choosing red matter over green matter. That happened about >>> 500 million years ago when bacteria and our unicellular forebears, >>> eukaryotes with true nuclei, evolved. This was due to competition between >>> bacteria and eukaryotes, the bacteria having devised pseudo-mutlicellular >>> traits like biofilms and quorum sensing. In order to compete, the >>> eukaryotes evolved cell-cell communication mechanisms for metabolic >>> cooperativity. Those cell-cell communications, mediated by soluble growth >>> factors formed the mechanistic basis for embryologic development. And >>> because I and my colleagues had generated enough mechanistic data over the >>> last 50 years for the development of the mammalian lung, and the lungs of >>> other vertebrates at the cellular-molecular level, it offered the >>> opportunity to reverse-engineer the phylogenetic history of the lung from >>> mammals and birds, back to the swim bladder of fish based on experimental >>> evidence at each step of the way in both the forward and backward >>> direction. At that point, the process was clearly all about how lipids have >>> evolved to facilitate oxygen uptake by cells as the principle mechanism >>> underlying lung evolution. That insight allowed tracing lung evolution all >>> the way back to the unicellular state when cholesterol began being >>> synthesized….Conrad Bloch had rationalized that since it takes 11 atoms of >>> oxygen to make one molecule of cholesterol, that there had to have been >>> enough oxygen in the atmosphere to do so, which would have been about 500 >>> million years ago, when vertebrate evolution began. The insertion of >>> cholesterol in the cell membrane of primordial eukaryotes was the >>> ‘catalyst’ for vertebrate evolution because it ‘thinned’ the cell membrane >>> out, facilitating gas exchange, oxidative metabolism and locomotion >>> (cytoplasmic streaming). As it happens, these are the three principle >>> physiologic traits for vertebrate evolution. >>> >>> >>> >>> But that still begged the question as to what the pre-adaptation for the >>> formation of cells was as the origin of life, serial pre-adaptations or >>> exaptations being the underlying principle behind evolution. In my >>> reduction, the only existing prototype for a ‘singularity’ like the >>> primordial cell, which formed from the lipids embedded in the snowball-like >>> asteroids that pelted the atmosphereless earth to form the oceans (accepted >>> scenario for the origins of life based on empiric data), was the >>> Singularity that is hypothesized to have existed prior to the Big Bang. And >>> by the way, lipids immersed in water will spontaneously form what are >>> called micelles, spheroids formed from semi-permeable lipid membranes. When >>> such micelles were heated by the Sun they liquified and deformed, but at >>> night they cooled and reformed due to hysteresis, or ‘molecular memory’ >>> unique to lipids. That memory was essential for evolution because in order >>> to do so you have to remember where you came from in order to evolve new >>> traits under environmental constraints. >>> >>> >>> >>> So the picture I have painted is one in which the origins of the Cosmos >>> are the building blocks of life as one continuum. And as such, biology must >>> comply with the Laws of Nature because they are innate to life- there are >>> strong homologies between Quantum Mechanics and the First Principles of >>> Physiology. So our physiology is derived from Cosmology. >>> >>> So back to eating red v green strawberries, our ancestors learned the >>> hard way that green fruit made them ill, which became an epigenetically >>> inherited trait due to the damage of acid reflux to the esophagus and >>> lungs. So either environmentally being told by parents not to eat green >>> strawberries or learning the hard way, selecting the red strawberries was a >>> survival advantage. But the ability to digest ripe vs unripe fruit is a >>> function of gut enzymes that evolved in support of metabolic success that >>> refers all the way back to land adaptation when numerous genes mutated and >>> replicated, mitigating against the physiologic stress of transitioning from >>> water to land because the Greenhouse effect due to accumulation of carbon >>> dioxide in the atmosphere caused drying up of water, forcing boney fish >>> onto land. >>> >>> >>> >>> So yes, the proclivity for red strawberries can be traced all the way >>> back to the Big Bang, certainly allowing for baking in.] >>> >>> >>> >>> You also said: “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we >>> just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like Chalmer’s ‘hard >>> problem’…)". I also can’t find a way to integrate statements like that >>> into the way I see the world. To me, Chalmers struggles defining what is >>> and isn’t part of the hard problem. But to me, it is only what Joseph >>> Levine calls the “explanatory gap”. The normal scientific methods is >>> constructing models of various parts of reality that appear to have >>> utility, then working to falsify them. If you can do that, then it is part >>> of the easy problem. It seems we can conceive of how we might test such >>> models as animating cosmic blueprints, but perhaps this is just more >>> evidence that I don’t know what you mean by that. Whatever it is, if we >>> can conceive of ways to verify or falsify such, it is, to me, just an easy >>> problem. >>> >>> >>> >>> Even Joseph Levine has troubles defining exactly what he means by the >>> “explanatory gap”. To me, it becomes clear if you provide an example. If >>> you could make a statement like: “my redness is like your greenness” this >>> would be an example of bridging the explanatory gap. The reason this is >>> “hard”, is because we don’t really know what qualia are, and everyone >>> considers qualia to be ineffable. We have no idea how would could falsify >>> a statement like: “My redness is like your greenness” This lack of any >>> ideas of how such might be falsified is the ONLY so-called hard problem. >>> To me, everything else is easy, and we know how to approach it, >>> scientifically. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you google for solutions to the hard problem, there is an unending >>> supply that will show up. But, to me, all these so-called solutions are >>> all easily falsifiable, and hence easy problems – having nothing to do with >>> the real “hard problem” – the qualitative nature of consciousness. To me, >>> this is a clear symptom of the failure to clearly state what is and isn’t a >>> hard problem and why. >>> >>> >>> >>> If a redness quale is simply a physical quality of some particular >>> matter, we can be directly aware of, you can now finally falsify a “My >>> redness is like your greenness” statement, by discovering which matter has >>> a redness quality, and which matter does not. No more “hard” problems. At >>> least that is the way I think about the world. >>> >>> >>> >>> [I was not familiar with Levine’s ‘explanatory gap’, with apologies for >>> my lack of knowledge in this regard, but I am not a psychologist, so I am >>> learning myself, on the job as it were. At any rate I think I can provide a >>> reasonable explanation for the ‘explanatory gap’ based on the concept of >>> ‘Terminal Addition’. But before I do, I would like to state that this kind >>> of confusion in biology about causation is due to what I stated at the >>> outset, that biology remains descriptive, non-mechanistic, and as a result >>> is built on associations and correlations, so of course the association of >>> pain with injury is a disconnect because the ontology and epistemology are >>> inconsistent. >>> >>> >>> >>> Terminal Addition ( >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reader.elsevier.com_reader_sd_pii_S0079610717302304-3Ftoken-3D8A42C40E500DA9AD1AD71F73CE09548DB524532789A37C44A54DCDE23193BB6C5B19391278867863D771991885CD4FFF&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=StcZ2etv8JSxxp2pWZu8939aqpWc8sroKQMGDokFT4o&s=FEGeY98vlul7hvVYdG0yjZFd0818Ea9meylSE0Ob04A&e= >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__reader.elsevier.com_reader_sd_pii_S0079610717302304-3Ftoken-3D8A42C40E500DA9AD1AD71F73CE09548DB524532789A37C44A54DCDE23193BB6C5B19391278867863D771991885CD4FFF&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0V5c_q9VtR34908rGK9WTgGae4Pk9Nt-RLF6zXwSpqk&s=VSRAYtzAa7q5wn5yjOauNQi3tVT1flVrjbVVH-mmswE&e=> >>> ) is the observation that as traits evolve they appear at the end of a >>> series of evolutionary changes, not at the beginning or somewhere in the >>> middle. When seen as cell-cell interactions, mediated by growth factors and >>> their cell-surface receptors, it is understandable that to insert a new >>> trait other than at the terminus would be highly inefficient, forcing other >>> collateral changes that have evolved over the course of evolution because >>> the downstream intracellular signaling is complex. And it is this ‘wiring’ >>> that interconnects mechanisms of cellular damage with the feeling of pain, >>> for example. The classic example is ‘phantom pain’, which I explained as >>> the way in which the organism may have lost some trait, but must retain the >>> ‘upstream’ signaling mechanism in order to sustain the other evolved traits >>> and remain as ‘normal’ as possible in order to pass on its genetics >>> reproductively.] >>> >>> >>> >>> I genuinely hope that you will understand my explanations because they >>> do resolve many dogmas in biology due to the descriptive nature of the >>> discipline, which must change if we are to make progress in biology and >>> medicine. I welcome criticism, further comments and queries. >>> >>> [image: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ssl.gstatic.com_ui_v1_icons_mail_images_cleardot.gif&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=StcZ2etv8JSxxp2pWZu8939aqpWc8sroKQMGDokFT4o&s=c7z6kF-i8S5Qwf6Jgdt450OzRvkFelccIRef2YJt9fI&e=] >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:09 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi John, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m having troubles integrating what you are saying into my view of the >>>> world. Things like “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it” >>>> doesn’t seem to fit. For me, the big problem is that people tend to think >>>> of “Consciousness” (or consciousness?) as a singular thing. Pan-psychism, >>>> at best talks about elemental matter having “proto-psychism” or something. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> To me, Consciousness, free will, self-awareness, intentionality, >>>> love... (and consciousness?) are all composite things composed of lots of >>>> stuff. To me, qualia or physical qualities are elemental things out of >>>> which all these composite things are constructed. When we are consciously >>>> aware of a strawberry, we have knowledge represented by elemental redness >>>> and greenness physical qualities, representing the strawberry. Physical >>>> qualities are elemental standalone things, which can be computationally >>>> bound together to become our composite knowledge of the strawberry. The >>>> computational binding which provides “situational awareness” of what we >>>> need to do to pick the red things, while avoiding the green things is also >>>> something additional. Would I be correct in thinking that matter which has >>>> a redness quality, has a “Cosmological blueprint” baked into it? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You also said: “all matter has that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we >>>> just happen to take that blueprint and animate it (like Chalmer’s ‘hard >>>> problem’…)". I also can’t find a way to integrate statements like that >>>> into the way I see the world. To me, Chalmers struggles defining what is >>>> and isn’t part of the hard problem. But to me, it is only what Joseph >>>> Levine calls the “explanatory gap”. The normal scientific methods is >>>> constructing models of various parts of reality that appear to have >>>> utility, then working to falsify them. If you can do that, then it is part >>>> of the easy problem. It seems we can conceive of how we might test such >>>> models as animating cosmic blueprints, but perhaps this is just more >>>> evidence that I don’t know what you mean by that. Whatever it is, if we >>>> can conceive of ways to verify or falsify such, it is, to me, just an easy >>>> problem. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Even Joseph Levine has troubles defining exactly what he means by the >>>> “explanatory gap”. To me, it becomes clear if you provide an example. If >>>> you could make a statement like: “my redness is like your greenness” this >>>> would be an example of bridging the explanatory gap. The reason this is >>>> “hard”, is because we don’t really know what qualia are, and everyone >>>> considers qualia to be ineffable. We have no idea how would could falsify >>>> a statement like: “My redness is like your greenness” This lack of any >>>> ideas of how such might be falsified is the ONLY so-called hard problem. >>>> To me, everything else is easy, and we know how to approach it, >>>> scientifically. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If you google for solutions to the hard problem, there is an unending >>>> supply that will show up. But, to me, all these so-called solutions are >>>> all easily falsifiable, and hence easy problems – having nothing to do with >>>> the real “hard problem” – the qualitative nature of consciousness. To me, >>>> this is a clear symptom of the failure to clearly state what is and isn’t a >>>> hard problem and why. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If a redness quale is simply a physical quality of some particular >>>> matter, we can be directly aware of, you can now finally falsify a “My >>>> redness is like your greenness” statement, by discovering which matter has >>>> a redness quality, and which matter does not. No more “hard” problems. At >>>> least that is the way I think about the world. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 10:48 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks for the clarification. I like what Skinner said personally. If >>>>> only it included the diachronic 'across space-time' component we'd be all >>>>> set.....any thoughts? Maybe it's more like 'mindfulness'? jst >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 9:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> John, >>>>>> >>>>>> Just for clarity, my definition of “Mind” is the way the word has >>>>>> emerged in radical behavioral and cognitive neuroscience circles. This is >>>>>> perhaps most clearly captured in B. F. Skinner’s (1987) comment, as follows: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cognitive psychologists like to say that "the mind is what the brain >>>>>> does," but surely the rest of the body plays a part. The mind is what the >>>>>> body does. It is what the person does. In other words, it is behavior, and >>>>>> that is what behaviorists have been saying for more than half a century. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ‘Beingness’ is another term that comes to mind as potentially >>>>>> referencing the Implicate Order (as in Sartre’s Being and Nothingness) >>>>>> >>>>>> G >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >>>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 23, 2019 10:54 AM >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's unfortunate that Mind already has a definition for you Gregg, >>>>>> because it would have been a good term, to my way of thinking, for the >>>>>> intersection of the Cosmological 'blueprint' and how our physiology >>>>>> complies with it, like an computer operating system and the software that >>>>>> utilizes it. Maybe a new term is needed? jst >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Jan 23, 2019 at 7:42 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, John. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I am reminded that when I use the term Mind (capitalized) I am >>>>>> referring to something very different when it is used by Descartes or many >>>>>> others. Mind on the ToK corresponds to the dimension of animal behavior, >>>>>> versus mind as human self-conscious reflection in many language games. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, your capitalizing Consciousness versus consciousness is important >>>>>> as it does highlight that the terms are referencing two different things in >>>>>> the universe. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> Gregg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 1:37 PM >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Gregg, I appreciate your point, and I think that it's the same >>>>>> reason the Damasio took me to task when I met with him last Friday about my >>>>>> use of the term Consciousness too. You are both clinicians, and to think of >>>>>> Consciousness as 'one size fits all' is anathema to the way you have to >>>>>> categorize mental health....BUT what I am addressing when I use the term >>>>>> Consciousness is like the difference between Truth and Law, the latter >>>>>> being a derivative of the former. I don't know if this will help, but I >>>>>> have further refined my way of thinking about Consciousness. I now think >>>>>> that Consciousness is the 'blueprint' of the Cosmos, animate and inanimate >>>>>> alike because homeostasis undergirds all of matter as the 'equal and >>>>>> opposite reaction' to the Big Bang....*without homeostasis there >>>>>> would be no matter*, *only energy* (and btw this is concordant with >>>>>> Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy' in that he too thought that >>>>>> the primary state of being is energy, and that matter is merely a transient >>>>>> state). And the way in which our physiology has evolved, endogenizing the >>>>>> environment and compartmentalizing it is the way we perceive that >>>>>> Consciousness 'blueprint' within us, but that's just our idiosyncratic way >>>>>> of actualizing the Cosmologic for survival as a result of evolving >>>>>> warm-bloodedness (and being bipedal, etc). Otherwise Consciousness is >>>>>> pervasive throughout the material world as homeostasis. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Put another way, Consciousness and consciousness are one and the same >>>>>> in the Implicate Order. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So I don't distinguish non-conscious from conscious in the sense of >>>>>> Consciousness because non-Consciousness is non-existent. What you are >>>>>> referring to is the physiologic mechanism that prevails in REM sleep or >>>>>> coma, for example. IMHO, this difference between Consicousness and >>>>>> consciousness is important in deliberating about your TOK because it >>>>>> addresses the ontology and epistemology of what life constitutes. In terms >>>>>> of consciousness, the origins and means of knowing are not consistent, >>>>>> whereas they are in terms of Consciousness. I hope that made sense because >>>>>> you have touched on an important distinction between Consciousness and >>>>>> consciousness, not to be semantic or argumentative, but to be clear. jst >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 9:49 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Great discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> John, as a psychologist, I need a language game that differentiates >>>>>> conscious from nonconscious activity. I am curious, how do you >>>>>> conceptualize the “unconscious” or nonconscious or subconscious? For a >>>>>> psychologist such as myself who uses consciousness to refer to subjective >>>>>> experience of being in the world, which, say flickers off each night when I >>>>>> sleep, I need to have words that refer to that activity beneath >>>>>> subjective/perceptual awareness. (Note, this is *not *self-conscious >>>>>> awareness, which is the “knowing that I know” thing). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Gregg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> PS I refer to what you call consciousness in organisms as >>>>>> “physiological functional awareness and responsiveness”. That is the kind >>>>>> of awareness I see in cells and plants. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> PPS. Here is my blog on the meaning and problem of consciousness >>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201812_10-2Dproblems-2Dconsciousness&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=8eFl7R5jcqdh9GkvxqOVPMwgqGf8KGEIPw307jJf71k&s=oRuW40yCYWYZtjmkZVyfGVDUATGYZwsQumurS6UnRkk&e=> >>>>>> in case that helps sort out the language game issues we might be having >>>>>> here. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >>>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 9:43 AM >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Joe et al, thank you for the feed-back. I know that the language >>>>>> unfortunately tends to get in the way when we talk across disciplines. My >>>>>> hope is that we can overarch the semantic problem, and your response is >>>>>> indicative of that. Having said that, the one key idea that I would like to >>>>>> get across is that all 'material' existence is the product of the 'equal >>>>>> and opposite reaction' to the Big Bang due to Newton's Third Law of Motion. >>>>>> Without that, there would be no matter in the Cosmos, only energy (So for >>>>>> example, Alfred North Whitehead theorized that the predominant 'process' is >>>>>> energetic interactions, and that the material state is merely a transient >>>>>> state of being). That 'equal and opposite reaction' is the origin of >>>>>> homeostasis for both the biologic and non-biologic realms. In physics, >>>>>> homeostasis is what produces balanced chemical reactions that form the >>>>>> rocks and dirt that we live on. So all of the material Cosmos originates >>>>>> from the same fundamental process. The core difference is that chemical >>>>>> homeostasis leads to stasis or stability, whereas biologic homeostasis >>>>>> allows for an on-going interactive 'dialogue' with the Cosmos, forming and >>>>>> reforming in order to cope with the ever-changing environment through >>>>>> direct epigenetic inheritance from the environment, or what we refer to as >>>>>> Evolution. And to be clear, I think that it is the combination of evolution >>>>>> as the endogenization of the external environment (see Lynn Margulis's >>>>>> 'Endosymbiosis Theory') that forms our internal physiologic 'knowledge' of >>>>>> the Cosmos/Natural Laws by compartmentalizing it and making it useful for >>>>>> survival and perpetuation of the species. When that construct is combined >>>>>> with our active dialogue with the environment, it generates what we think >>>>>> of anthropomorphically as Consciousness. But to reiterate, all matter has >>>>>> that Cosmic blueprint baked in to it, we just happen to take that blueprint >>>>>> and animate it (like Chalmer's "hard problem", or the concept of >>>>>> disembodied consciousness expressed by Andy Clark), but that's just who and >>>>>> what we are as a species, no more, no less. Unfortunately, it also makes us >>>>>> extremely Narcissistic because we are the only species that 'knows that we >>>>>> know', which tends to innately strike fear of death into us, BUT that is >>>>>> mitigated by the perpetual gaining of knowledge through the scientific >>>>>> method. So in terms of David Bohm's expression of this in his book >>>>>> "Wholeness and the Implicate Order" as The Explicate Order, which is the >>>>>> way we see things through our subjective senses, versus the Implicate >>>>>> Order, which is the absolute true order of things, scientific knowledge >>>>>> moves us ever further away from the Explicate Order, and toward the >>>>>> Implicate Order. I hope that was helpful, and I welcome any and all >>>>>> comments, criticisms, etc, etc in the spirit of constructive dialogue. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jan 22, 2019 at 5:27 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Greetings from the frozen north John (et al.). Thank you for your >>>>>> latest contributions. As ever, I find your work tremendously fascinating. I >>>>>> think I largely agree with your argument. Maybe I'm just struggling with >>>>>> the semantics in some ways. I fully agree with the linkage of energy to the >>>>>> homeostatic processes and the various "survival" mechanisms in nature >>>>>> across all forms of life. And I entirely agree with your argument about >>>>>> cellular efforts to maintain information distinctiveness and energy >>>>>> efficiencies, at least at the theoretical level (I have no applied >>>>>> experience in the field beyond my novice attempts to study life through >>>>>> microscopes as an undergraduate!). Perhaps it's just the fact that, apart >>>>>> from our anthropomorphism, we have just conventionally used the term >>>>>> "consciousness" in conjunction with the presence of the "mind" and mental >>>>>> behavior. But if you're main argument, as I get used to the more complex >>>>>> language you use to describe the biological processes, is that everything >>>>>> biological - from the cellular to the organismic levels - responds to their >>>>>> environments by deploying energy and processing information to maintain >>>>>> organizational continuity (my wording) or homeostasis, then I agree fully. >>>>>> And then, as you've indicated, you can define consciousness & intelligence >>>>>> as linked to these processes as opposed to our usual link to the Mind or >>>>>> "mental behavior." Or maybe I'm must over(under?)-thinking the argument! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks again for sharing some of your latest work. I do think that >>>>>> you and your colleagues have offered a fascinating argument about how to >>>>>> conceptualize the "self" in an even grander fashion. With kind regards, -Joe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski >>>>>> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> *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, January 21, 2019 1:54 PM >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>>> *Subject:* Re: + True Good Beautiful Self-States >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear Gregg and Joe, thanks for sharing that clip from Amadeus. Based >>>>>> on my own reduction of 'self' with Bill Miller (see attached; ideally to be >>>>>> read in the context of 'The Singularity of Nature' (see attached), I think >>>>>> that the transactional process between Salieri and Mozart required that >>>>>> both had a strong sense of who they were, because if not, one would have >>>>>> subsumed the other for lack of 'character strength' for lack of a better >>>>>> term. Ideally, they would have struck a homeostatic 'balance' that you are >>>>>> referring to as the + TGB SS. But ultimately I think we have to understand >>>>>> the premise of 'how and why' we exist or this is all just sophistry. Why >>>>>> homeostasis- because it is the mechanism that prevailed post-Big >>>>>> Bang....the 'equal and opposite reaction that ascribes to Newton's Third >>>>>> Law of Motion. I say that because without it there would be no matter, just >>>>>> free, chaotic energy (Alfred North Whitehead's 'Process Philosophy'). So >>>>>> homeostasis is the universal principle behind all matter, inanimate and >>>>>> animate alike. So that would suggest pan-psychism, which we agree seems >>>>>> silly- a rock is not conscious, unless we are defining consciousness as >>>>>> what we humans think it is, but is not. Cut to the chase, I think that we >>>>>> misconstrue consciousness as being aware of ourselves and our surroundings, >>>>>> but that is an anthropomorphism. All organisms are conscious, it's just a >>>>>> function of their particular environment/Niche as to what it constitutes, >>>>>> which is the endogenization of the external environment, forming physiology >>>>>> by compartmentalizing those features of the Laws of Nature in order to >>>>>> survive and remain in sync with The First Principles of Physiology, which >>>>>> reference the Singularity prior to the Big Bang. So in other words >>>>>> Consciousness is the way in which we and all matter connect with the Cosmos >>>>>> as the entirety of the product of the Singularity/Big Bang. Only then will >>>>>> we understand the + TGB SS, IMHO. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jan 21, 2019 at 6:02 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for sharing Gregg. Indeed, I had transcribed the words of the >>>>>> clip and shared these because I thought it represented such an excellent >>>>>> example of what the pursuit of the TGB looks like when, however fleetingly, >>>>>> that occurs unfettered by all the trappings of one's ego. It's below zero >>>>>> here (Fahrenheit), but I already have a warm feeling for the rest of the >>>>>> day! Peace, -Joe >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski >>>>>> >>>>>> 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] >>>>>> >>>>>> ______________________ >>>>>> >>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - >>>>>> henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, January 21, 2019 8:15 AM >>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>>> *Subject:* + True Good Beautiful Self-States >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi List, >>>>>> >>>>>> Joe M and I were talking yesterday about the nature of Positive >>>>>> True/Good/Beautiful Self-states (+ TGB SS), relative to Negative >>>>>> False/Bad/Ugly Self-States (- FBU SS). He reminded me of the movie Amadeus, >>>>>> and explained why it was such a great illustration of these dynamics >>>>>> (although apparently the movie is not exactly an accurate portrayal of >>>>>> Salieri’s actual relationship to Mozart). In the movie, Salieri struggles >>>>>> with feelings of jealousy, envy and inadequacy, and at the same time, loves >>>>>> the beauty of Mozart. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Here is a great clip where he makes full contact with that side of >>>>>> the equation and thus you can see and feel the + TGB SS flow… >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=StcZ2etv8JSxxp2pWZu8939aqpWc8sroKQMGDokFT4o&s=yvw0JFFyXidY1PWnuMiB9_6zTULwytkkulWNh3fglu4&e= >>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=> >>>>>> >>>>>> mozart salieri favorite - Yahoo Video Search Results >>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__video.search.yahoo.com_yhs_search-3Ffr-3Dyhs-2Ditm-2D001-26hsimp-3Dyhs-2D001-26hspart-3Ditm-26p-3Dmozart-2Bsalieri-2Bfavorite-23id-3D1-26vid-3Dec20d8e7c1a0f8481a186b0532e2f150-26action-3Dclick&d=DwMF-w&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=joZshrnMRKKNH0IZ2n6Sp_XKKxlpaFEIULZwPzqQLyw&s=A8VyhjcugTf7mTdBvnCpsx0F1g304JzMc1WBdDtH2KQ&e=> >>>>>> >>>>>> video.search.yahoo.com >>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__video.search.yahoo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=felM6t-23shozx04zWWYuMYveYgVSLrmBcAdF8HJ0ls&s=41mXkwngbtuHsClipM7egoI1AAGfDEOhjHs9BjlCQwQ&e=> >>>>>> >>>>>> The search engine that helps you find exactly what you're looking >>>>>> for. Find the most relevant information, video, images, and answers from >>>>>> all across the Web. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to Joe who pointed this out to me yesterday. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> G >>>>>> >>>>>> ############################ >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> ############################ >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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