Brent, I had previously signed in as a camp supporter, and have done so again....if I'm not 'registering let me know...Best, John On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 9:52 AM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > John and everyone, > > It looks like we are ready to canonize the topic for the ToK definition: > > > 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=hQ9RVj5rApAICQUvd4mGfqQOGWhEVtJ09bcwL36u-iU&s=71ZmAL9qYd2PbP3_HkjsV5NQhfXAJTZMJe53ZWC2xCg&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=kQP3BSaDeho7MB3rJuGEh1DoIVtnGR290wBU7t189xo&s=_z6G8G22KyYzWjW4GKx39oHv75HgnHXWtT3EHwGi6XQ&e=> > > But john, I haven't seen you list your name as a supporter for your camp > now titled: First Principles Formulation. > > Are you OK with the current camp name and statement? And once it is > created on Canonizer.com, are you willing to support that camp? By > default, unsupported camps are filtered out. So if someone doesn't support > it, it won't show up. > > Brent > > > > On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 1:20 PM Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> >> 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=hQ9RVj5rApAICQUvd4mGfqQOGWhEVtJ09bcwL36u-iU&s=71ZmAL9qYd2PbP3_HkjsV5NQhfXAJTZMJe53ZWC2xCg&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=kQP3BSaDeho7MB3rJuGEh1DoIVtnGR290wBU7t189xo&s=_z6G8G22KyYzWjW4GKx39oHv75HgnHXWtT3EHwGi6XQ&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=hQ9RVj5rApAICQUvd4mGfqQOGWhEVtJ09bcwL36u-iU&s=71ZmAL9qYd2PbP3_HkjsV5NQhfXAJTZMJe53ZWC2xCg&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 > ############################ 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