I noticed Gregg added explicit support to both the child camp and the parent super camp. This isn't necessary, as when you explicitly join a camp, you already implicitly support (and are counted in) all parent camps, up to and including the agreement root camp. On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:11 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Yes, Yes, looking nice! > > The supporters of the camps are the ones that decide on the name and > content, but it is nice to co-ordinate with other camps, so readers can > easily see and name the differences. > > I see Gregg listed his name as a supporter of the now called "Standard > formulation" camp. > > I'm going to delegate my support to Gregg, and indicated such in the > google doc. That means my vote just follows Gregg to whatever camp he > joins. Also, delegated supporters don't get notifications of proposed > changes to the camp, as they rely on only direct supporters getting these > modification notifications. Direct supporters are expected to stay > involved, monitoring proposed modifications and such. If they don't want > to do that, they can delegate their vote to any other supporter, whether > delegate or not. People delegating to that person who switches from a > direct supporter, would follow him and would become a new branch on the > tree they delegated their support too. This is known as infinite > delegation, with trees of delegated support, potentially giving good > delegates LOTS of immediate influence. One person with a majority of > delegates in a particular organization decision topic for example, could > have absolute and instantaneous control over an organizational decision, by > switching camps. *No hierarchical organization could compete* with that > kind of speed and amplified wisdom of the crowd power at making good > decisions for everyone. The direct suporter can decide whether or not they > want to consult or notify their tree of delegators any time. Delegators > can abandon their delegate, any time they want, if they think they aren't > doing a good job. > > Yes, John, that would be great if you added your name as a supporter of > the competing camp. And also, I'm sure you can improve the camp statements, > so that would be great if you did that also, especially for your camp. > > > 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=Y6RkY9QDmudsBJ-GQZ22WJC4CCtWoRMWAf6vWU768v4&s=XwSrMCTwWZcYnZMGwk7arB3fuBttOYYBzmUpIwFjn7o&e= > > Thanks, > Brent > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 8:03 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi Gregg and Brent, I will defer to Gregg's characterization of the first >> and second camps as Standard and First Principles of Physiology given that >> he is more skilled at didacticism than I am. Not to mention that the >> mindset of First Principles of Physiology infers the diachronic >> perspective, so it's a win-win as I see it, if folks are willing to >> transcend the descriptive in order to 'see' the nuts and bolts of >> evolution. I see that as essential if we are going to make headway as a >> species among species.....in that spirit I would appreciate your feedback >> on the attached paper, somewhat in the spirit of 'sharing', but also for >> critical evaluation, if you will because I see it as the way we may be able >> to bridge the gap between the first and second camps. Thank you. John >> >> On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 9:44 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Brent and John, >>> >>> Thanks for this. I made some edits to the google doc. From my >>> perspective, the central issue is not synchronic versus diachronic. I see >>> the differences between us being that I (and the ToK depiction) frame the >>> world in terms of emergent behavioral functionalist language, whereas >>> John’s First Principles is more of a reductive physiological mechanistic >>> view/language. Thus, I labeled the first camp “standard” and offered some >>> description that way, and labeled the second camp the First Principles >>> interpretation. >>> >>> >>> >>> This is fun! Thanks so much Brent. I can see why this process could be >>> really helpful for understanding agreement and disagreement and thus can be >>> a real tool to foster agreement modeling. >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> Gregg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY >>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 10, 2019 8:22 AM >>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>> *Subject:* Re: Canonize Nature of Joint Points? (Was Re: Thoughts on >>> Consciousness and Matter) >>> >>> >>> >>> 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=Y6RkY9QDmudsBJ-GQZ22WJC4CCtWoRMWAf6vWU768v4&s=XwSrMCTwWZcYnZMGwk7arB3fuBttOYYBzmUpIwFjn7o&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 >>> ############################ >>> >>> 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