Brent, thank you for formulating the google doc. Should I fill in the initial camp statement to minimally define Diachronic v Synchronic, and sign in as an initial supporter? Please advise. On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:46 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi Gregg, > > That's a very helpful slide deck. > So the ToK is just a sub part of the much larger "Unified Theory Unified > Approach". > It sounds like a good idea to start with a topic focusing on the ToK > definition. > After this, we can expand things to include other consensus building > topics arround the UTUA and its other parts. > > Since Canonizer.com is designed to scale to hundreds of people or more, it > is a bit cumbersome, when just a few people are working on things, and > everyone knows what everyone does and does not agree with. Also, when you > submit any change to Canonizer, unless the submitter is the only supporter > of that camp, the change goes into review mode for one week, before it goes > live. The direct supporters of that camp are notified via email of the > pending proposed change, and that if no camp supporters object, the change > will go live in one week. This is the easiest way to make changes, while > guaranteeing there is unanimous consensus of all camp supporters for the > change. In other words, any supporters of a camp or sub camp can object to > any proposed change they don't like. > > So it is usually much more efficient to start with a google doc, in wiki > mode (everyone can edit). Everyone can then wiki the topic and camp names, > the structure (camp parents) and initial camp statements. It also helps if > supporters of particular camp add their names a supporter. > > Then once things start to take shape, and you get a handful of people > willing to be initial supporters of initial camps, you can push this into a > Canonizer topic and start seeking further public contribution and support > (like asking people to sign a dynamic petition). > > So, I've made a template google doc file (in wiki mode where anyone can > edit). > It lists the topic and possible camp names, camp parents, possible > statements.... > > I've pre populated with example statements, and names. Foro the > consensus super camp statement defining the ToK, so far, I've just included > the ToK slide. There should probably be some textual description added to > this slide. > > I'm sure you guys can replace these with something much better. And it > would be helpful if people could indicate who is willing to be initial camp > supporters. (Also indicating they agree with the current camp and parent > camp values.) > > In this google doc, feel free to replace my clueless example statements > and names with something at least a bit better to get us started. > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ctUdu5XLvOf8OYGvSL0UZDyDKRxXDBJRjGN7twb70TY&s=HX8aHNiiAAHsqJWmp7bkjQdkOFT-QL3T7JyuHYmOfWc&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_19i9yiml6oGsglnvivthm9g-5FOQ87dlBphqsL-2D2pm7iTA_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=akr4IF6Z1BhW9K8g1iouVG6B-UmzVw-qjK08161-WVE&s=DdYXXIg03tSvsYKLBsf8xI-5arfTwsTWpmRECScHdKs&e=> > > Does that sound reasonable? > > Brent > > > > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:48 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Brent, >> >> I think a super camp of what the ToK is would be great and then we >> could start to identify the process of building consensus around the best >> way to describe or characterize scientific knowledge. >> >> >> >> Also, I pulled some diagrams together in the attached ppt to show the >> correspondence between the UTUA Theory of Knowledge and RQT…My goal is to >> show correspondence in the language game of UTUA with Representation Qualia >> Theory. And to highlight that the UTUA contextualizes some things, such as >> self-consciousness and language and behavioral action. >> >> >> >> Hope this helps show where I am. >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> John, >> >> I will try to reply to your comments soon. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> G >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2019 3:34 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts on >> Consciousness and Matter) >> >> >> >> dang, still saying supper, when I mean super. Sorry. >> >> please do a global replace of all "supper" words with "super". >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 1:26 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> We could make a narrow-focused topic, just on the synchronic or >> diachronic nature of the joint points. Of course, people can use any name >> for their camp they want. >> >> >> >> Or, we could make a more general consensus topic to define exactly what >> the ToK is. >> >> >> >> Perhaps we could have a more general name like: “The Tree of Knowledge >> (ToK)” >> >> Then the agreement statement could define the purpose of the topic by >> saying something like: >> >> >> >> The purpose of this topic is to build consensus arround the best way to >> talk about and classify nature. >> >> >> >> Then we could make a supper camp, which everyone will likely support. >> Maybe we could call it “ToK consensus definition”. I’m assuming everyone >> would agree with the stuff Gregg threw out there, which could seed this >> supper camp: >> >> >> >> Universe is unfolding wave of behavior >> >> Behavior is change in object field relationship >> >> Behavior is key construct science uses to map universe >> >> Ontologically there are different kinds of behavior patterns in nature >> >> Epistemologically, the scientific method is used to define and measure >> behavior >> >> Global time ranges from the big bang until now >> >> The past is determined, the future is probabilistic >> >> Behavior can be divided into levels of analysis (parts, wholes, groups in >> contexts) >> >> Behavior can be divided into dimensions of four complexity (Matter, Life, >> Mind, Culture) >> >> Dimensions are strongly emergent because of >> information-communication-memory systems (genetic, neuronal, linguistic) >> >> Local time span varies across levels and dimensions of behavior >> >> Natural philosophy is agnostic about mysticism and supernatural claims, >> but the latter do not mesh with the grammar of the natural philosophy >> language system >> >> Sentience emerges at Mind and is dependent on nervous systems >> >> Human Persons are unique animals because of processes of justification >> >> >> >> >> >> Anywhere disagreement shows up, such as this synchronic / diachronic >> split, we could push down to supporting sub camps, one for each, which >> people could join. Whichever achieves the most consensus, would become the >> standard most people would want to use. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 12:55 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hi Brent, >> >> I look forward to learning more about canonizer. >> >> >> >> So, I view the ToK as a new way to conceive of natural philosophy. So, >> is a subject line something like >> >> >> >> ToK as Map of Scientific Knowledge or ToK as Natural Philosophy or ToK as >> new Language System for Science. >> >> >> >> Then some claims it makes (just brain storming quickly): >> >> >> >> Universe is unfolding wave of behavior >> >> Behavior is change in object field relationship >> >> Behavior is key construct science uses to map universe >> >> Ontologically there are different kinds of behavior patterns in nature >> >> Epistemologically, the scientific method is used to define and measure >> behavior >> >> Global time ranges from the big bang until now >> >> The past is determined, the future is probabilistic >> >> Behavior can be divided into levels of analysis (parts, wholes, groups in >> contexts) >> >> Behavior can be divided into dimensions of four complexity (Matter, Life, >> Mind, Culture) >> >> Dimensions are strongly emergent because of >> information-communication-memory systems (genetic, neuronal, linguistic) >> >> Local time span varies across levels and dimensions of behavior >> >> Natural philosophy is agnostic about mysticism and supernatural claims, >> but the latter do not mesh with the grammar of the natural philosophy >> language system >> >> Sentience emerges at Mind and is dependent on nervous systems >> >> Human Persons are unique animals because of processes of justification >> >> >> >> Is this the kind of thing/list that starts a canonizer process? >> >> >> Best, >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >> *Sent:* Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:22 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts on >> Consciousness and Matter) >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> Great, let’s get started, then. >> >> >> >> John, Gregg, or anyone could you throw out any possible consensus >> building topic title? The limit is 30 characters. >> >> >> >> Then we need to start with a general concise description of what we want >> to build consensus around. >> >> >> >> And remember, this is not the peer reviewed publishing model, where >> everything needs to be perfect, before you publish. The wiki way is for >> anyone just to throw out their ideas, off the top of their head, and >> everyone constantly helps to improve things. Any and everything can change >> at any time, as long as no current supporters object. >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 8:51 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hi Brent, I'm game. I do think that my approach is 'superior' because it >> is mechanistic, based on unbiased empiric data, not inductive reasoning. >> Just sayin'. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 9:28 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> That’s just what I needed, that schematic showing the differences. Thanks. >> >> >> >> This type of disagreement (or lack of consensus) is a perfect job for the >> Canonizer consensus building system. We could make a consensus building >> topic, who’s purpose is to build consensus around this issue of the nature >> of the joint points. >> >> >> >> In the root level agreement camp, we could state the purpose of the >> topic, or what we are trying to build consensus around. Then we could >> create two (or more) competing sub camps, to track, concisely and >> quantitatively, what everyone believes (and needs) from this. May the one >> which can achieve the most consensus, prevail, and become the standard. >> Yet still leave room for minority people, so everyone can still be aware >> of who needs something different and why. >> >> >> >> We could create a super camp, containing the general Matter, Life, Mind, >> Culture stack, which is the most important thing we all agree on. Then we >> could create two competing sub camps, working on the lessor important >> definition of the nature of the joint points. Once we have a concise >> description of the differences, and what it is each camp wants, we can see >> which one the experts agree has more utility, at least for them. And >> hopefully, once everyone understands, concisely and quantitatively, what >> everyone needs, someone can come up with a way to get everything, >> everything they need – and get us all in the same camp, mostly? >> >> >> >> I’ll split the consciousness part of the reply off on a different topic >> thread. >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:32 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Dear Brent, I would like to clarify, if I may, in [brackets] to your last >> reply >> >> >> >> *So the difference is, in the ToK it is the increasingly complex static >> state of matter at different joint points. Whereas for you, there is more >> utility if you think of the joint points as the ever-higher level processes >> or “mechanism” that enables one to move to each of the higher levels?* >> >> >> >> [The cellular approach to evolution is founded on The First Principles of >> Physiology- negative entropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis. Those >> Principles are 'formulated' at the inception of the unicell in the >> transition from matter to life. All of the other levels in the ToK are >> products of those Principles, mediated by cell-cell interactions/signaling. >> So yes, you're right, but with this background of self-referential >> self-organization as the underlying set of principles.] >> >> >> >> >> >> *Is this consciousness as a continuum model, a representational model of >> conscious perception where you have #1: the physical qualities of the >> target of perception (maybe glucose), and the very different qualities that >> are #2: the final result of the perception process, our knowledge of the >> target (maybe calcium flow)?* >> >> >> >> [I'm not sure I understand your statement, so I will restate what I think >> consciousness is. I think consciousness is the aggregate of our physiology >> as integrated cell-cell interactions for homeostasis. The self-referential >> self-organization derives from the formation and interactions of the cell >> with the environment, incorporating it and forming physiologic traits >> through compartmentation; homeostasis refers all the way back to the equal >> and opposite reaction to the Big Bang, being the 'force' that maintains >> equilibrium in the Cosmos, without which there would be no matter, only >> free energy and chaos. That very same homeostatic force is what generates >> balanced chemical reactions and life alike. The bottom line for me is that >> the agents/processes that formed the Cosmos are the principles for life as >> a derivative of those agents/processes, and what we think of as >> consciousness are those principles. So I use the analogy of the Cosmos as >> the Data Operating System and life as the software that runs off of that >> DOS.The calcium flow is the means by which the software functions within >> the organism.] >> >> >> >> I have schematized the difference between the ToK and the cell-cell >> communication mechanism (see attached) to be clear. Bottom line is that the >> ToK describes the process whereas the cellular perspective provides the >> mechanism for the Joint Points. If you have further questions, comments, >> please don't hesitate. >> >> >> >> Best, John >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 9:26 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Oh, OK, >> >> So the difference is, in the ToK it is the increasingly complex static >> state of matter at different joint points. Whereas for you, there is more >> utility if you think of the joint points as the ever-higher level processes >> or “mechanism” that enables one to move to each of the higher levels? >> >> >> >> >> >> Is this consciousness as a continuum model, a representational model of >> conscious perception where you have #1: the physical qualities of the >> target of perception (maybe glucose), and the very different qualities that >> are #2: the final result of the perception process, our knowledge of the >> target (maybe calcium flow)? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 4:18 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> You're welcome Brent, I will reply in brackets to your email as follows: >> >> >> >> Let me see if I have it: >> >> This is modeling the transaction from single cellular to multicellular, >> where consciousness exists. This is done through the combined effects of >> niche construction and the phenotype guiding the process forward. >> >> >> >> [Yes and No. I think that consciousness exists in unicellular organisms, >> along with Arthur Reber, who wrote "First Minds". If you read Helmut >> Perlmutter's paper on the response of paramecia to glucose put in the water >> triggering a calcium flow, the same thing would happen if you put glucose >> on me tongue, the neurons in my brain also increasing calcium flow. I see >> consciousness as a continuum.] >> >> >> >> This seems quite similar to and compatible with the ToK where first there >> is Matter transitions to life (single cell), then life transitions to >> multicell / mind? >> >> >> >> [I see the ToK as compatible with my perspective, with the exception of >> the Joint Points between the different 'levels'. I think that they are >> mechanisms that generate the different levels that Gregg has formulated, >> and seeing it that way would make the 'Tree' more robust IMHO.] >> >> >> >> Help me understand how qualia fits within this model? >> >> >> >> [If you follow the reasoning about physiology evolving in a step-wise >> manner, mediated by cell-cell signaling, traits that exist at one stage of >> evolution are integrated into subsequent stages, offering the opportunity >> for a sensory mechanism at one level to be vertically integrated into >> subsequent levels, acquiring other sensory associations along the way.] >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 5:53 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Thanks John, that helps. >> >> Let me see if I have it: >> >> This is modeling the transaction from single cellular to multicellular, >> where consciousness exists. This is done through the combined effects of >> niche construction and the phenotype guiding the process forward. >> >> >> >> This seems quite similar to and compatible with the ToK where first there >> is Matter transitions to life (single cell), then life transitions to >> multicell / mind? >> >> >> >> Help me understand how qualia fits within this model? >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:15 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Niche construction is the process by which an organism optimizes its >> surroundings.The classic example is the earthworm, which has retained its >> aquatic kidneys on >> >> land. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 1:57 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> What I mean is that based on the Endosymbiosis Theory (margulis) that the >> cell assimilated factors in the environment and compartmentalized them like >> iron in red blood cells. That was the foundation for biology complying with >> Laws of Nature. In combination with the phenotype as agent 4 collecting >> epigenetic marks we’d the organism to its environment evolutionarily. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 12:16 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> I think I still don’t know much about your model of consciousness, and >> what you mean by: “the transition to consciousness is accounted for by >> the combined effects of the cell as the first Niche Construction plus the >> phenotype as agent to account for the dynamic drive for the former.” >> >> >> >> So, any further explanation you could do would help me. >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Brent >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 7:38 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Gregg, as I think I have said before, I see the way forward from your ToK >> through the Joint Points. So for example, my origins story regarding lipids >> in water is the transitional mechanism from matter to life; and the >> transition to consciousness is accounted for by the combined effects of the >> cell as the first Niche Construction plus the phenotype as agent to account >> for the dynamic drive for the former. If you want I can spell that out >> further, but I have to run for now. Thanks for the opportunity to explain >> my position vis a vis yours....John >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 8, 2019 at 8:17 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Great question, John! I think the two perspectives can be merged, but >> “how” is a big issue. My experience is that I can incorporate your view, at >> least in many ways. As you know, I have illustrated it as the Torday Line. >> >> >> >> Is your experience that you can* incorporate* mine? Take, for example, >> Justification Systems Theory (JUST). I don’t know what it means to say that >> you can mechanistically reduce this to “cell-cell” communication. I >> certainly can acknowledge that there are analogies and homologies and the >> like between cell communication and human communication. But human language >> is also a radically different thing. >> >> >> >> Let me put it this way, how does JUST impact your view of reality, >> specifically human consciousness or human knowledge? My experience has been >> that when you relate to the key features of the ToK from your perspective, >> they all dissolve away. That is, all the differentiation that I need as a >> human psychologist and psychotherapist to make sense of human persons and >> their complicated mental and cultural processes collapses into an >> undifferentiated mass. Thus, I would benefit from you explicating how these >> ideas fit in and are not just examples of “just so stories” or of >> rearranging deck chairs on the Explicate Order and the like—for if that is >> what they are, then you are not connecting the two systems—you are >> eliminating my system and replacing it with yours. If that is the reality, >> that is fine. But we need to be clear. >> >> Best, >> >> G >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >> *Sent:* Friday, March 8, 2019 7:15 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: Thoughts on Consciousness and Matter >> >> >> >> Dear Gregg and ToKers, just briefly, you have said that I have dismissed >> the 'knower' in my analysis/synthesis based on the cell-cell communication >> model of evolutionary biology. But that's not the case. I have said to you >> on several occasions that I think my mechanism is your 'joint points', but >> you reject that idea for some reason. Please explain why the two >> perspectives, yours and mine, cannot be merged in that way? Best, John >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 6:30 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hi TOKers, >> >> I am heading out to a conference (Theoretical and Philosophical >> Psychology) where I will be meeting up with Edward to support his >> presentation on Emotional Warfare and One Divide. Thus will likely not be >> replying in the next few days. I have enjoyed the conversation and helpful >> exchange of ideas. >> >> >> >> I will offer some parting thoughts. First, this conversation shows how >> “big” the concept of consciousness is. It is arguably the central problem >> in philosophy. That is, the relationship between our subjective field and >> the external world. Even that “dichotomy” raises questions from a number of >> analytical perspectives. But, the fact is that philosophy, like all of our >> knowledge systems has become so pluralistic, it is hard to know what to >> believe at all. >> >> >> >> One of my hopes with the ToK/UTUA System is by bringing a unified >> framework together for both natural philosophy and phenomenological being, >> a crucial aspect of the bridge that has previously been missing can now be >> complete. >> >> >> >> First, let’s describe the situation we find ourselves in. I posit that >> our individual and small group first-person experience of human >> consciousness can be mapped via the Tripartite Model. That is, each of us >> has a subjective, perceptual “empirical” (as in through the senses) >> experiential self system. Open your eyes and that is what you see. Second, >> we each have a language-based narrator, that has the remarkable capacity to >> either be private (as in when we talk to ourselves) or public (as when we >> talk to others). Here is the map: >> >> Now let’s consider our group “situation” as the TOK list serve. That is, >> the TOK is the “network society” that is serving as a hub for us as we >> participate and interact with each other. And each of us can be thought of >> as nodes in the network (I am indebted to Alexander Bard here). The >> internet and our keyboards provide the informational interface for our >> interactions and transactions. >> >> >> >> What is the “structure and function” of the system as a whole? Our >> justification systems, our question and answer claims about what is and >> what is not. Or, in late Wittgensteinian terms “language games.” That is, >> each of us has a phenomenal position in the world and each of us are >> narrating our version of reality. The term language games refers to the >> “grammar” or concepts and categories we are using to make sense of the >> world. The rules of the game are our methods for determining what is >> legitimate and what is not. >> >> >> >> Now we move to John’s language game/metaphysical empirical version of >> reality. John’s justification system is that, via some unique empirical >> findings, he has transcended the traditional descriptive biological view >> and achieved a view of reality that logically flows from first principles; >> that is, the big bang, action/reaction sparking a homeostatic free energy >> flow that gives rise to the core “first” principles of physiology. For >> John, this gets us out of our narrow anthropomorphic subjective view and >> allows for a truly scientific (i.e., analytically objective, physicalist) >> view of nature. >> >> >> >> Here is how I understand my and John’s dilemma. If you look at the >> attached Tree of Knowledge System poster, check out the diagrams on the >> bottom and go to the third one. It starts with Energy on the left and goes >> through Matter, Life, Mind and Culture down to a point. On the flip side, >> there is the “self/knower,” which starts at the Cultural dimension and goes >> down. In this email, that is what I have been emphasizing. On the top, >> there is the equation, Knowledge = known x knower/knower. Meaning that >> objective scientific knowledge is a function of that which is known by >> knowers, factoring out the unique subjective knower. The diagram shows what >> I mean. That is, the “anti-knower” refers to the conceptual process by >> which we factor out our human subjective knowledge and arrive at a >> holistic, generalizable “true” picture of matter and consciousness and >> everywhere in between. The scientific method is the anti-knower. >> >> >> >> I have been arguing with John, not so much because I disagree with his >> first principle view. But I experiencing it as eliminating my theory of the >> knower in an overly strong manner (as many physicalist reductive positions >> tend to do). My plea is that to get the equation right we need to include >> our subjective knower systems. We can not just eliminate them; to do so >> would be to eliminate all that we hold dear. What we need to do is first >> factor IN the human knower, before we factor her out. >> >> >> >> Then, we can get a full view of existence that includes matter and >> reflective consciousness and everything in between. >> >> >> Gotta run. >> >> >> >> Best, >> G >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >> *Sent:* Thursday, February 28, 2019 6:39 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: How Psychology Helps Reinforce the Justification System >> of Neoliberalism >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi John, >> >> >> >> You said: “I wonder what someone with red-green color blindness sees >> looking at a strawberry?”. Exactly. People with the inability to >> distinguish between red and green light, have this problem because they >> represent both of these colors of light with the same physical quality. We >> don’t yet know if it is our redness, greenness, or something else, >> entirely. Tetra-chromats have an extra color they represent some of the >> visible spectrum with, so they can distinguish between similar colored >> light, which us normal tri-chromats are color blind too. I want to know >> what that color I’ve never experienced before is like. >> >> >> >> I'm looking forward to when we finally know which physics in our brain, >> have these qualities, so we can finally say effing if the ineffable things >> like "My redness is like your greenness", and "oh THAT is what that 4th >> color is like" >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 4:03 PM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> 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=DwMFaQ&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 >> >> ############################ >> >> 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 >> >> ############################ >> >> 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