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