I missed this line Gregg provided: *ToK as Map of Scientific Knowledge or ToK as Natural Philosophy or ToK as new Language System for Science. * Perhaps an agreement statement, defining the purpose of the consensus building topic: *The purpose of this topic is to build consensus arround the best way to classify scientific knowledge, natural philosophy and our language systems describing such.* 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