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