Can you cite experimental evidence for evolution? On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 12:36 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > John, > > > > You bring up Dobzhansky. Great, let’s talk about him. His actual quote > was “Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jstor.org_stable_4444260-3Fseq-3D5-23metadata-5Finfo-5Ftab-5Fcontents&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=QwCa4XBGF9F-NE7fO2RDVvTS7ibBJZ5ZCuWVMKcSipU&e=>.” > And he based that claim on the remarkable synthesis of Darwinian natural > selection and molecular genetics. So, you are arguing that we should listen > to Dobzhansky? And yet, you also write: > > "There is no scientific evidence for Darwinian evolution, yet we hang on > to that theory for dear life, knowing it is illogical and > untestable/unrefutable” (from Sat 3/9). > > > > I think this is basically a ludicrous claim to make. Which means there is > much more to systemic knowledge than empirical evidence alone. There is > interpretation of what the data mean and how to think about it. I don’t > share your interpretations of empirical evidence. > > > > Here is how I make sense of the puzzle: > > > > Natural selection operating on genetic combinations is obviously key. > However, I do consider it to be significantly incomplete. I think there is > much more capacity for organisms to evolve into niches than standard > genetic mutation theory allows. The brings in epigenetics (see my blog on > this here > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_intl_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201312_revolution-2Din-2Devolution-2Dreturn-2Dlamarck&d=DwMFAg&c=kbmfwr1Yojg42sGEpaQh5ofMHBeTl9EI2eaqQZhHbOU&r=fAX9xBiqC7Jpwi5bcf42BpKio-w7hhMYFN9VxTHChls&m=kdyPU7LtUT84oPwjve6sOKG09VL-G0yH2TDY2YlWLEs&s=VHEcJA2sEVcOIDyYf1DC3FMjM1PbfKxxxld0WReVCbc&e=>). > In addition, I agree with you that cell theory is not properly integrated > with the modern synthesis. So, I am with you the modern synthesis needs a > significant Newton-into-Einstein overhaul. And I think you are “seer” in > this regard. > > > > But, John, your knowledge of philosophy and big picture synthetic views of > psychology and the social sciences, well, quite limited in many ways. So, I > embrace the “Torday line” which to me incorporates your findings and > explains your vision from my vantage point. > > > > Bottom line: We have different interpretations of data and their > implications and different ways to make sense of the world we find > ourselves in. Lots of compatibility, but also some incommensurability. > Let’s just agree to disagree and move on, shall we? Or you and I can back > channel if you want. > > > > Best, > Gregg > > > > > > > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *JOHN TORDAY > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:21 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System > > > > Dear ToKers, the great debacles of science like Heliocentrism, Microbe > Theory, Vitalism, DNA as the mechanism of inheritance, The Big Bang, have > all been resolved by experimental evidence. Where is the experimental > evidence for the ToK/UTUA? I ask because this is the challenge for me, > which I have offered to resolve by interjecting the experimenal evidence > into Gregg's ToK as the Joint Points. He chooses to reject that out of hand > as being a different systematic approach to the ToK. I dispute that, and in > my defense I will cite Theodosius Dobzhansky, the pre-eminent evolutionist, > who said that 'evolution is all of biology', psychology being a subset of > biology. If my take on evolution is unacceptable, then some other body of > experimental data must be offered in order to resolve this debate. I offer > this perspective in the spirit of constructive debate....John > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 5:58 AM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Thanks Brent and Gregg for these additional comments and clarifications. I > find the Canonizer platform incredibly helpful and a great mechanism for > comparing arguments and theoretical perspectives, especially since we have > much more limited opportunities in the academic world through our > traditional publication processes. Especially helpful for people to locate > themselves vis-a-vis others in a constructive fashion. Continued success > Brent, > > > > -Joe > > > > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=> > > Dr. Joseph H. Michalski > > Associate Academic Dean > > King’s University College at Western University > > 266 Epworth Avenue > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=> > > London, Ontario, Canada > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=> > N6A 2M3 > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=w73AUW1QTCA6T3g75__8fGxG_8iAFlUiQNAX1xjHf-A&s=3OhpYtC6-k2JP-lRwhwP7yi-iOcylmMqw400WHG42Po&e=> > > Tel: (519) 433-3491 > > Fax: (519) 963-1263 > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > ______________________ > > *ei*π + 1 = 0 > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 12, 2019 7:20 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System > > > > Thanks for this wonderful description, Brent. > > > > As my slides suggested, I am definitely in the Representational Qualia > Theory camp. It is interesting because after that, I am not sure where to > place myself. (I joined and put myself there). > > > > That means that with canonizer I can see clearly where my approach falls > relative to others, which is super helpful. I almost went with biological > naturalism via John Searle. However, I don’t quite share his language. I > think that the next “breakdown” point I would argue for is “Property > Quadism” to contrast with property dualism. Property dualism goes under > mind-brain identity. I disagree with that language system, because I make > very clear distinctions between mind (the mind) and consciousness. Property > quadism stems from the ToK and the claim that, ontologically, there are > four dimensions of behavioral complexity (Matter, Life, Mind, and Culture) > that characterize the behavioral patterns of objects, organisms, animals, > and persons. > > > > Thus, under RQT I would add UTUA Theory of Knowledge… > > > > Fascinating. > > > Best, > > Gregg > > > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < > [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop > *Sent:* Monday, March 11, 2019 11:09 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: In Need of a Clear Language System > > > > Hi Mark, > > > > You seem to not know much about how canonizer works, what it is, or what > it has already accomplished. > > > > You indicated how “Crowd Sourcing” is not the source to “wisdom” or > “understanding” and that the crowd is “clueless”. I agree with you, that > currently the crowd is quite clueless. The only reason we want to measure > this cluelessness, using the default popular consensus canonizer algorithm, > is so we can compare this to the “expert consensus” as measured by expert > canonizer algorithms. What you can measure, will improve. This allows the > experts to better find out what the popular consensus is. Knowing where > the crowd is mistaken and why, they can then better form the expert > consensus in a way that the crowd can better keep up. One of many ways > this canonization process amplifies the wisdom of the previously, > clueless. For example, global warming experts will finally be able to know > what the crowd believes, and why. And they will be able to measure which > arguments better convince the crowd… Again, amplifying the wisdom of the > crowd. > > > > Before Canonizer.com existed, many of the notes groups and forums I > participated in, even the philosophy ones, would try to shame people into > not bringing up the topic of “qualia”, knowing that this would just lead to > a shouting match, where no matter what you referenced from what was coming > out of the Ivory Tower and Peer reviewed journals, someone else would throw > an equally ivory towers reference claiming it was “fake news”. The same > old yelling match, and reference throwing at each other never made any > progress, and ultimately one side or the other would accuse the other of > being Nazis. The stuff being published in peer reviewed journals is no > different. This fear and loathing everyone has of even bring up the topic > of qualia, as a result of all this, is the biggest reason the crowd is so > clueless. Even many neural experimentalist fear bringing up the word > qualia. If they try to consult the peer review journals on this, it is all > junk, so they just give up after a few years. Jack Galant is a very good > example of exactly this. > > > > Now, when you go into forums, where people know what canonizer.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=> > is, everything has changed dramatically. Talking about qualia is now fun. > Anyone that brings up qualia, now, is quickly met with people pointing to > links, describing the state of the art of emerging expert consensus camps > held by the participants in the forums. Instead of all the repeated old > arguments, on the occasion someone does bring a new argument or scientific > results to the conversation that is not yet canonized, you canonize that > new argument. You can measure the quality of such arguments and evidence > by how many people they convert. We are already seeing this. Again, that > which you measure, improves the wisdom of the crowd. These kinds of > conversations, in forums, are now very fun, and you see things start to > progress at an extraordinary rate, instead of being stuck on the same old > stupid arguments, over and over again. We even had a high school student > come to canonizer.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>, > clearly initially, quite naive about many of the good arguments and > theories. Within a few months, since he was able to ignore all the old > stuff by all the old experts taught in college classes, which most experts > now agree have been falsified, he was competing with PhDs that had been > working and publishing in the field for years with his contributions. > > > > There are also LOTS of people that have what they believe to be the > “Solution” to the hard problem, which they can’t get published, for lots of > various reasons, including the fact that many of the ideas look really > crazy, and have nothing to do with the real “hard problem”. These kinds of > people flock to canonizer.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>, > because it is finally a place where they can, not just publish their work > they can canonize it, and start finding other people that agree with them, > building consensus around their best ideas, and abandoning the bad ones. > > > > Now that canonizer has been around, and we’ve been doing the consciousness > consensus project for more than 10 years we’ve made a real breakthrough. > The “Representational Qualia Theory > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6-3F&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=0RNGuwEW1JQDWa-AcIzsas_lm9KtG-on5irO0fJ8rwA&e=>”, > which has almost unanimous expert consensus, is not only proving how much > consensus is possible in this field, it is the real solution to bridging > the explanatory gap, describing a real way to approach the qualitative > nature of consciousness scientifically. > > > > The Ivory tower and peer reviewed journal industry has been struggling > with this so called “hard problem’, for hundreds of years. About all > they’ve given anyone, is that there is no consensus on anything. Only the > bad arguments are the ones that get so often bleated, by the polarized > herding crowd. Now, with Canonizer, no more. > > > > You also said: “You don't get to redefine "canon." The Church owns the > word.” > > Which is also incorrect. The domain name “canonizer.com > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__canonizer.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>” > is owned by Canonizer.com LLC, and nobody could get a copyright on a word > like that. We're using it quite successfully already. > > > > Brent > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:44 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > > Brent: > > Yes, I know. As a result, you will fail. Pick a different name . . . <g> > > "Crowd Sourcing" is a fad that people increasingly recognize is *not* > the source to "wisdom." It certainly has its purposes -- like if > you're trying to build "consensus" -- but "understanding" isn't one of > them. > > Most people have no clue what is going on -- for good reason. You > *really* only need to understand something because you are > "responsible" for the outcome. That means yourself, your family, your > job -- that's it. Enough. No more. > > The notion that a group of people without that direct engagement with > the subject-at-hand should have something "intelligent" to say is > idiotic. They never will and, indeed, they really shouldn't. > > President of the US? Negotiations with North Korea? None of my > business. Opinions? Don't have one. Stick your opinion survey where > the sun doesn't shine (as more-and-more people are, in fact, telling > the pollster) . . . !! > > "Democracy" -- particularly of the *direct* sort -- is a hoax. I know > some of the people who spread this idea, including those who did it to > the "shop floor" and they were quite idealistic about it. They also > thought we should all live our lives like the Aboriginals. Huddled > around the fire, starring at the flickering images on the tent wall. > Without literacy. Rousseau would have liked it, I suspect. > > > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Fred-5FEmery&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=19-AJ6b2uPtOcvH5PZ8v3aoWOBbQtP-h_fMqr6Mdg9k&s=Str2nuv8x8KlwqngwxVOqJvsjde8rsPQ0zWS5JbgpEA&e= > > You don't get to redefine "canon." The Church owns the word. The > environment can do that -- documenting which, btw, is the whole point > of the Oxford English Dictionary -- but you can't. > > So don't even try (unless you want to learn a lesson that you have > already been taught) . . . <g> > > Mark > > Quoting Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>: > > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > > > We 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=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=> > are using and defining canonize in a new way, or giving > > it a new, or additional definition. > > > > > > > > Where as the traditional meaning is based on a hierarchy or > “ecclesiastical > > definition” our meaning is simply crowd sourced or built by consensus. > > Instead of top down, it is bottom up. Instead of dictated from above, it > > is self-organized, bottom up. > > > > > > > > Where the traditional usage is based on tradition, our usage is dynamic, > > and always changing. It is a measure of the state of the art of a > standard > > scientific consensus, theory, and belief. > > > > > > > > It is simply what the participants build consensus around what they want, > > and the current state of the art of the best terminology we chose to use. > > > > > > > > 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=6C0_mIxyrkfL1lP2qpsJwkrCQcZIPtoU5JEzuyMJ3G8&s=EgzHE7goOJoGo2CusKHtbPyYH14YRf_dZoT-2a-EWhg&e=>, > to “canonize” something, is to find out, concisely and > > quantitatively, what everyone truly wants or believes. Then once that is > > known, to get it all, for everyone. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 9:13 AM Mark Stahlman <[log in to unmask]> > > wrote: > > > >> John/Gregg: > >> > >> This is *classic* . . . !! > >> > >> John is PRINT and Gregg is ELECTRIC. Two different "sensibilities." > >> How could they possibly "agree" on anything . . . ?? > >> > >> The irony, of course, is that this is only happening because they are > >> *both* now obsolete. Both distantly in the "rear-view mirror." Both > >> looking backwards. > >> > >> From an ELECTRIC standpoint, we all have different "language > >> systems." From a PRINT standpoint, we can actually try to sort all > >> this out -- "scientifically." > >> > >> In both cases, the underlying "biases" are masked. Neither > >> standpoints recognizes that fundamentally different > >> psycho-technological environments are at work. And neither will those > >> who participate in the "Canonizer" game. > >> > >> Crucially, neither wants to admit that DIGITAL brings a completely > >> different sensibility to the "debate." > >> > >> Yes, this is classic . . . <g> > >> > >> Mark > >> > >> P.S. The irony is that a "Canon" isn't either PRINT or ELECTRIC. And > >> it cannot be decided by a "vote." It is SCRIBAL -- as in "Canon Law." > >> What a world of surprises awaits us all. > >> > >> > >> > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Canon-5Flaw&d=DwIBaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=liZu1PIudVuCGmjsE9GbqAYr0y2OqjrUURySMh9-XlQ&s=6LaimFVFrpAJE-fcNiRoxup3P4z-C3rLwB9vJpzG8jg&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