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=1gkoFURcBtvGCWYf28-v-ER0vB1jFCt1g_OTI5L0wuA&s=rDbpxhxFKk5bjGdlWQZyENyEKUXNwwqm_06QpdUZC3M&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