John,
Let’s focus on some agreement. I agree that you offer a powerful, new reductive physiological line that offers a potential “180 degree” shift in key aspects of how we might think about physics into biophysiological causation. Although I can’t see and follow all that you can given your specialized language and knowledge background, I can see enough to be convinced it is fascinating and on to something. The way I think about it, the classic modern synthesis (i.e., natural selection operating on genetic combinations) is clearly incomplete and key insights regarding your first principles of physiology and epigenetics will be needed to obtain a truly “complete evolutionary synthesis”. I also “get” that your view is a foundational game changer in many ways, and sets the stage for a view that aligns us with the Implicate Order. All good.
However, to be complete any new explanatory system needs to deal with the lower level of description. That is where we find our struggle. You are correct to note that I am working at the level of description and you are working at a more fundamental level of explanation. Great! And (potentially) hats off to you. BUT for your explanations to be complete (and for me to believe that they are), you MUST deal with my descriptions! Einstein’s theory of gravity dealt effectively with the phenomena of attraction as described by Newton. He did not just brush off descriptions that did not fit.
I am offering blindsight as a description of a phenomena that, IMO, any model of consciousness would need to be able to frame. The argument that you are operating at a deeper level is a non sequitur if you don’t deal with the description that I am highlighting. If you can’t deal with it, then your deep explanation is missing key features and your rhetorical argument falls flat, at least to my ear.
Best of intentions,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of JOHN TORDAY
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 8:43 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
Gregg, this kind of anecdotal example is akin to the difference between Newton's Theory of Gravity and Einstein's. Newton generated an equation to describe the attraction of masses to one another whereas Einstein showed how and why gravity bends light. In doing so, Einstein interrelated gravity and Relativity Theory, providing a diachronic, mechanistic, across space/time perspective rather than just a synchronic, descriptive view. I would submit that this represents what I had referred to in my previous email, that the science leverages the transition from the Explicate to the Implicate Order.
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 8:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Let me offer one quick follow up, based on a back channel question I received.
To understand the difference between consciousness as functional awareness and response versus subjective phenomenology, consider the concept of “blindsight”. Blindsight is the case where someone, usually do to damage to the occipital lobe, is blind (i.e., has no experience of vision). However, what Weiskranz and other neuropsychologists found was that such patients do have some functional visual awareness, even though they have no subjective experience of vision. For example, an individual can be asked to “look at a room” and point to which side a box is located. The person responds, “I have no idea, I can’t see anything.” And the experimenter says, “I know, but take a guess.” And the person points to the correct side with 90-95% accuracy. The reason is some visual information is being processed, it just is not manifesting itself in subjective awareness.
This highlights the conceptual difference between behavioral functional awareness (i.e., the person can actually respond to objects in the environment) despite no subjective conscious awareness.
Best,
G
From: Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2019 7:36 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: RE: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
John,
If we have any hope in achieving clarity, we need to disentangle the meaning of the words we are using. First, though, let me be clear in that the question of whether humans are “good for the planet” is different than whether or not they have unique forms of consciousness. As I write in this blog, we “verbals” can obviously be viewed as a nightmare from the vantage point of other species. But, let’s face it, if an alien came and visited this planet, the behavior of one species would stand out as demonstrating radically different patterns than others, and it would not be the flies avoiding the fly swatters, but the people who constructed the tool and the way they talk about how annoying the flies are.
The question on the table pertains to “consciousness”. I am taking a scientific view of the concept. That means I am going to try and “objectively” describe it. Depending on how consciousness is defined, that can present a foundational problem. First, though, it depends on how it is defined. If you define consciousness in terms of “functional awareness and response,” then you are defining consciousness in terms of objective behavior. This is how you conceive of the term. That is, you know organisms are conscious by the fact that you can observe (i.e., take a video of) that they are “aware of their specific environments” and they respond accordingly. Given that I am a “universal behaviorist,” I appreciate the value of this perspective.
However, there are other meanings of the term consciousness. One crucial meaning is “subjective phenomenology” or “what it is like to ‘be’ something”. As I highlight in this blog on the conceptual problems of consciousness , subjective phenomenology carries the epistemological problem that we can never objectively observe another’s subjective experience (see problem 6). You can not take a video of my perceptual experience of being in the world. Except for the owner, everyone (or everything) else’s subjective phenomenology must be inferred. This relates to the philosophical problem of zombies (i.e., the possibility that no one or nothing else in the universe has a subjective phenomenology).
So, there is a “language game” problem here (which, BTW, it what I describe as the first problem of consciousness, recognizing the many entangled definitions and confusing issues). You mean consciousness in terms of physiological functional awareness and response that can be observed via a third person. I was using the term to refer to subjective phenomenology (which all the scientific evidence suggests is found in animals with brains—not bacteria!—and then I build off of that into human self-conscious reflective awareness and explicit intersubjectivity).
This has nothing to do with my being anthropomorphic. It just has to do with the concepts of science and observation and the unique epistemological and metaphysical problems associated consciousness as subjective phenomenology (which sets the stage for human intersubjectivity via language). IMO, your language system just glosses over these issues and then uses rhetoric about deck chairs, insanity, and the need to do things different, which are not exactly relevant. Bottom line, with all due respect, I don’t see how your First Principles of Physiology deals at all with the epistemological or metaphysical problems of subjective phenomenology. As such, it does not really deal with the heart of the problem of consciousness. That said, I do believe it help us conceptually understand the foundations of cellular functional awareness and response and thus is valuable in shifting and ultimately grounding our perspective (e.g., as you know, I have found the idea that the brain is the “skin inverted” to be a powerful conception of its origin and function).
Best of intentions,
G
PS The ToK System, with its conception of energy as fundamental and depiction of the universe as an unfolding wave of behavior, completely agrees with Whitehead’s process philosophy as far as I can tell (although I am not an expert).
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Marquis, Andre
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 5:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
I, for one, am enjoying the dialogues between Gregg and John!
andre
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 2:23 PM
To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
Gregg, you are taking an anthropocentric position IMHO. I would submit that if you woke up in a fly's realm, but with your human attributes that you would rapidly succumb to the fly swatter absent the fly's skill set. All of the human qualities you enumerate are highly admirable, but they are what we humans use to do human things. And they have evolved from our bidpedal body habitus, freeing our forelimbs for specialized functions like tool making and texting, followed by language as another 'tool' needed to express ourselves while operating tools. Yes, we are probably unique in 'knowing that we know', but that has also resulted in our species being the only one that is destroying the planet, so that should give us pause.
And yes, all organisms are conscious in their own idiosyncratic ways, in service to being aware of their specific enviornments, in turn in service to passing their genes from one generation to the next as the biologic imperative- that's why all species are engaged in evolution. Bottom line is that all of life exists in recognition of the Singularity as its origin as the template for our existence pre-Big Bang, the 'equal and opposite reaction' complying with Newton's Third Law of Motion, which we now identify as homeostasis as the reason that matter exists....without homeostasis there would only be energy. This is the basis for Alfred North Whitehead's "Process Theory". He intuited that matter is a transient state of energy, and that it is for this reason that only relationships matter (pun intended). I think that until we come to this realization we will continue to keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different outcome, which is a functional definition of insanity, recognizing that I am ironically responding to a psychologist (with the best of intentions on my part)....
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:06 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Yes, John, we have confirmed we disagree on this point. J
You do agree that we humans have a different form of information processing than animals called symbolic, syntactical language, correct? And you agree that we humans are the only animals that have the self-reflective capacity, such that we know that we know, right? And we are the only creatures that develop science and attempt to map the Explicate v. Implicate order, correct? So, if consciousness is awareness (which is a point that I believe you have made), then it seems to me that there are a number of dimensions of awareness (i.e., self-conscious, reflective, linguistically explicit, logical analysis) that represents a big difference between we humans and, say, houseflies…or fish or snakes or ravens or rat or chimps or dolphins…but wait, are you saying all animals have the same level of consciousness? That would be a radical claim, at least as I am conceptualizing consciousness (note, I mean little “c” not your big “C”)
You have your “diachronic versus synchronic deck chair” claim, which I continue to try to wrap my “evolutionary time oriented” mind around. Keep in mind I have my argument that the universe represents different levels and dimensions of complexity, with the different dimensions of complexity emerging as a function of different information-communication systems, Life-genes, Mind-nervous systems, Culture-human language, which I think you have trouble wrapping your mind around.
Best of intentions,
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of JOHN TORDAY
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2019 1:32 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
As you well know Gregg, I respectfully disagree with the distinction between animal consciousness and human consciousness. I maintain that consciousness is derivative of physiology, and if that is correct, we don't distinguish the principles of physiology in animals and humans.....to the contrary, we study animal physiology to understand human physiology, not just for ethical reasons, but because the comparative anatomy, biochemistry and molecular biology inform us about the evolution of physiology. As for mapping the relationships between disciplines, it must be more than just the synchronic real-time 'rearranging the deck chairs'; it must entail a diachronic, across space/time transcendent perspective in order to factor out the artifacts of the human subjectivity about our origins and mechanism of evolution, starting with unicellular organisms, moving forward. Just to be clear, there are commonalities between how Mendeleev configured the Periodic Table of Elements and that for Evolutionary Biology as I have conceptualized it based on experimental data rather than inductive reasoning. This is an important insight because both chemical equations and the mechanisms of physiologic evolution offer the opportunity to transcend space/time, providing that essential diachronic view I have alluded to that is necessary in order to get to the fundament of Nature as the literal product of the Big Bang. Only then can we understand interdisciplinarity IMHO.
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 12:34 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks for these thoughts, Jason and John.
One thing I would offer from a ToK System lens regarding the point about “behavior” and psychology and the social sciences, is that a major hurdle to any coherent, consilient dual major or interdisciplinary view is that we have lacked the appropriate map of the whole.
For example, at the institutional level, it is absolutely the case that psychology focuses its lens on human behavior at the individual level. However, virtually all its foundational concepts regarding learning and neuro-cognitive maps are at the level of the “mental” (i.e., animal behavior and the idea that the mind is what the brain does). In other words, to have linguistic clarity, we need to split basic/animal psychology from human psychology and then place human psychology as the base of the social sciences.
We will achieve more effective multi/interdisciplinary perspectives if we map out the relationships between the disciplines in a more effective way.
Best,
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of JOHN TORDAY
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2019 7:39 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
Dear Jason, Gregg and TOKers, the 'silo-ing' of intellectual pursuits is overwhelmingly apparent in this thread. I have been involved in the initiative for what is being termed Interdisciplinarity for a number of years, contributing to the Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity, for example. I assumed that that effort was pervasive, only to realize through this discussion that clearly it is not. If I may share my own life experience, I was a Biology/English double major in college. Through that interdisciplinary approach I learned how to 'dissect' both a frog and a poem, literally. But the contrast was palpable in the sense that my poetry Professor would read a piece of poetry, 'dissect' it over the course of the lecture, but would never let us out of the lecture hall until he had read it again in its entirety because it didn't exist other than as a whole. Conversely, the frog would remain on the lab bench in pieces, and many of my classmates are your physicians, I might add. My learning experience was that the frog, like the poem, did not exist without reassembling it, which I have done as a cellular biologist/physiologist over the course of the last 50 years. It's far more difficult to see things both as parts and wholes, let alone teach it, but as Gregg had alluded to, perhaps we'd be better off learning through dual disciplines that complement one another, like Psychology and Sociology, IMHO.
And not to get too meta, but I think the reason that we need to use a 'double major' approach is because we are only approximating the 'truth' in David Bohm's Explicate Order (Wholeness and the Implicate Order), so to have an informed perspective, we must see things through more than one lens. I have, for example, come to the realization that the reason we must control a scientific experiment is because what we are examining is only relative, not absolute, so we need to provide a 'context' or framework in which to do so.....in Bohm's ideal or Implicate Order, for example, there is no need for controls, if you get my drift. I offer these thoughts with the best of intentions.
On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 2:40 PM nysa71 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Gregg writes, " A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists and psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures..."
It's funny you should mention that. Over a decade ago, I started thinking that it was strange that there were these institutional "walls" between psychology and the other social sciences, and that it seemed so "early 20th century". I remember thinking that they're all dealing with human behavior --- with psychology dealing with individual behaviors, but the other social sciences dealing with the context within which individuals behave, (and those social structures being both reinforced and changed due to behaviors at the level of psychology).
All of these fields have developed to the point where I sometimes wondered if it would make more sense to start thinking of universities offering more "general" bachelor degrees along the lines of "Psychology & Social Science", and then focusing on a specific disciple, (e.g., psychology, sociology, anthropology, political science, economics, etc.), in post graduate studies.
At the very least, psychology undergraduates should be required to take some social science classes.
~ Jason BesseyOn Sunday, February 24, 2019, 10:35:01 AM EST, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Thanks for sharing this, Jason. Neoliberalism and its critique is a major focus of a number of the major Div 24 scholars, with Jeff Sugarman leading the way. A problem, of course, is that mainstream psychologists and psychotherapists don’t think about the macro-level structures, values and processes that are operative. Rather they look at phenomena and clients and try to describe and explain what they see, with really appreciating the deep context.
My favorite book on a related topic is Barry Schwartz’s The Battle for Human Nature. It reviews behavioral theory, evolutionary theory and economics and here is its summary:
Out of the investigations and speculations of contemporary science, a challenging view of human behavior and society has emerged and gained strength. It is a view that equates “human nature” utterly and unalterably with the pursuit of self-interest. Influenced by this view, people increasingly appeal to natural imperatives, instead of moral ones, to explain and justify their actions and those of others.
Best,
G
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of nysa71
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2019 5:03 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of Neoliberalism
Interesting paper on psychology and neoliberalism:
ABSTRACT
This article draws attention to the relationship between neoliberalism and psychology. Features of this relationship can be seen with reference to recent studies linking psychology to neoliberalism through the constitution of a kind of subjectivity susceptible to neoliberal governmentality. Three examples are presented that reveal the ways in which psychologists are implicated in the neoliberal agenda: psychologists’ conception and treatment of social anxiety disorder, positive psychology, and educational psychology. It is hoped that presenting and discussing these cases broadens the context of consideration in which psychological ethics might be examined and more richly informed. It is concluded that only by interrogating neoliberalism, psychologists’ relationship to it, how it affects what persons are and might become, and whether it is good for human well-being can we understand the ethics of psychological disciplinary and professional practices in the context of a neoliberal political order and if we are living up to our social responsibility.Sugarman, J. (2015). "Neolberalism and Psychological Ethics". Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 35, 103 - 116.
~ Jason Bessey############################
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