Brent, I am saying that because oxytocin has pleiotropic effects perhaps it connects the image of a strawberry to its taste on the tongue and the color red. And these elements of red strawberries were acquired across space/time diachronically. That’s what I imagine quaila to be as free associations . I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness sees looking at a strawberry? On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:52 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > Brent, > > Just so I am clear, Is your distinction below parallel or similar to Locke’s > distinction between primary and secondary qualities > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Primary_secondary-5Fquality-5Fdistinction&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gYtcWhJWfW_jwIkpdOIqstz4l4xPnp3Chp0vIZobamM&s=pK9xRcnEhvTDmerVyZRDnnr2XRkxDtX15ylr08Rsq9I&e=>? > > > > Best, > Gregg > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop > *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 4:47 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System of > Neoliberalism > > > > Hi John, > > I have missed the point, because we are talking about completely different > things. Everything you are saying makes complete sense, in a completely > qualia blind way. For example, when you talk about linking “color and > other physiologic functions of oxytocin” what do you mean by “color”? It > seems that what you mean by color, you are only talking about abstract > names, such as the word “red”. > > > > I’m talking about something completely different. I’m talking about > physical qualities, not their names. Within my model, when you say color, > I don’t know which of the flooring two physical properties you are talking > about: > > > > 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation. These > properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry reflecting > red light. > > > > 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final results of > the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious knowledge > of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as *redness*. > > > > I guess you’re not talking about either of these, you are only talking > about the physical properties of oxytocin, and how it behaves in the > retina? Would you agree that it is a very real possibility, that > experimentalists, operating in a non-qualia blind way, could falsify any > belief that oxytocin is necessary for any computationally bound composite > conscious experiences of redness, or any other qualia? > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:26 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Brent, I think that you have missed the point of the hormone oxytocin > functionally connecting the cell that perceives color (the cone) with the > epithelial cells that line the retina, offering a way of physically seeing > red in conjunction with pain.....it's a hypothesis for linking vision and > color and other physiologic functions of oxytocin, of which there are many, > including regulation of body heat, empathy, the relaxation of the uterus > during birth and production of breast milk, referred to as 'let down', > which I always thought was a funny term, be that as it may. I would > imagine, for example, that a woman in labor might see red due to the pain > of that experience. And just to expand on that idea of interconnections > between physiology and physics, the attached paper shows the homologies > (same origin) between Quantum Mechanics and The First Principles of > Physiology. That nexus would hypothetically open up to seeing a red > strawberry, particularly because I equated pleiotropy (the interconnections > between physiologic traits through the distribution of the same gene in > different tissues and organs) with non-localization, the physics that > Einstein referred to as 'spooky action at a distance'. > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 3:48 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > > > Hi John, > > > > I’m glad you at least mentioned the name, “red” of a physical quality. > But are the physical properties of oxytocin, or the physical properties of > anything in the retina anything like either of the physical qualities of > these two things? > > > > 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation. These > properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry reflecting > red light. > > > > 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final results of > the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious knowledge > of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as *redness*. > > > > Other than the fact that we may be able to abstractly interpret some of > these physical qualities, like we can interpret the word “red” as > representing a redness physical quality? You can’t know what the word red > (or anything in the eye representing anything) means, unless you provide a > mechanical interpretation mechanism that get’s you back to the real > physical quality they represent. > > > > All abstract representations (including all computer knowledge) are > abstracted away from physical qualities. Any set of physical qualities, > like that of a particular physical cone in a retina, can represent a 1 (or > anything else), but only if you have an interpretation mechanism to get the > one, from that particular set of physics. Consciousness, on the other > hand, represents knowledge directly on physical qualities, like redness and > greenness. This is more efficient, since it requires less abstracting > hardware. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:14 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Brent and TOKers, I am hypothesizing that consciousness is the net product > of our physiology, which is vertically integrated from the unicellular > state to what we think of as complex traits. In that vein, in the paper > attached I proferred as an example the role of oxytocin in > endothermy/homeothermy/warm-bloodedness. The pleiotropic effect of oxytocin > on retinal cones and retinal epithelial cells would hypothetically account > for seeing 'red' when looking at a strawberry, for example. It's the > 'permutations and combinations' that form our physiology that cause such > interrelationships due to our 'history', both short-term developmental and > long-term phylogenetic. Hope that's helpful. > > > > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 2:02 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Tim Henriques asked: > > > > “What is your operational definition of consciousness?” > > > > John Torday replied with his definition / model of consciousness. > > > > Also, if you google for solutions to the “hard problem” of consciousness, > you will find as many solutions as you care to take time to look into. > > > > I’m sure all these models have some utility, when it comes to > understanding various things about our consciousness, and our place in the > world. But what I don’t understand is, why not a one of them include > anything about the qualitative nature of consciousness? None of them give > us anything that might enable us to bridge Joseph Levine’s “Explanatory > Gap” > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Explanatory-5Fgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=UIxALV6nC0i0REWXcxwY9XJkwi_k0lNlkxReXKG7Kc4&e=>. > In other words, to me, they are all completely blind to physical qualities > or qualia. In fact, as far as I know, all of “peer reviewed” scientific > literature, to date, is obliviously qualia blind. Is not the qualitative > nature of consciousness it’s most important attribute? > > > > One important thing regarding conscious knowledge is the following > necessary truth: > > > > “If you know something, there must be something physical that is that > knowledge.” > > > > This implies there are two sets of physical qualities we must consider > when trying to objectively perceive physical qualities: > > > > 1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation. These > properties initiate the perception process, such as a strawberry reflecting > red light. > > > > 2. The physical properties within the brain that are the final results of > the perception process. These properties comprise our conscious knowledge > of a red strawberry. We experience this *directly*, as *redness*. > > > > If we seek to find what it is in our brain which has a redness quality, we > must associate and identify the necessary and sufficient set of physics for > a redness experience. For example, it is a hypothetical possibility that > it is glutamate, reacting in synapses, that has the redness quality. If > experimentalists could verify this, we would know that it is glutamate that > has a redness quality. We would then finally know that it is glutamate we > should interpret “red” as describing. > > > > So, given all that, and given that consciousness is composed of a boat > load of diverse qualia or physical qualities all computationally bound > together, and if experimentalists can verify these predictions about the > qualitative nature of various physical things. Would that not imply the > following definitions? > > > > “Intentionality, free will, intersubjectivity, self-awareness, desire, > love, spirits… indeed consciousness itself, are all computational bound > composite qualitative knowledge.” > > > > As always, for more information, see the emerging expert consensus > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_81-2DMind-2DExperts_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=0lbtXYwu6UYUdQeUkWWMfrHjCaUUKuXa5N1zYDhjsf8&e=> > camp over at canonizer.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=QF6BXcCLyHuTabm0Y_tR_F1kNvcsGgmM-j5AKZ5FuaE&e=> > being called: “Representational Qualia Theory > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=is49AUyt7veBXQyowhTXwLkYTEOXiaEfeR_6txOxafU&s=pEF0jzBSKnzm7WMm97GdK89Xq78vTnh8L2J427I7nac&e=>”. > > > > > ############################ > > 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