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.Does that sound reasonable?Brent########################################################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?
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”. 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 camp over at canonizer.com being called: “Representational Qualia Theory”.
############################
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
