John and Brent: I have been following your exchanges from a distance. And, would like to add another perspective for consideration My human anatomy training and experience in anatomical pathology reminds me, in the context of your discussions, that function and structure are best understood when considered together. In this instance, the following occur to me: John’s perception of the role of micelles, environmental encapsulation, and intra-/intercellular organelles appears to be a coherent description of how life arose from matter (two parts of Property Quadism). A rational justification, if you will, for life’s emergence from matter and at the root of evolutionary theory. Those early matter modifications certainly may be envisioned as a consistent and coherent means by which multicellular life arose and evolved. In fact, physiology of multicellular organisms, such as Home sapiens, continue to use those original modifications, or variations thereof, in allowing life to be an ongoing enterprise. That includes how the brain works its wonders - but, it is not the only way. That type of neurophysiology/function is but one level of organization of the Central Nervous System’s operations That cellular & intracellular interaction, so obviously crucial to CNS internal function and effector interaction may be characterized as PRIMARY NEUROPHYSIOLOGY - essential but not sufficient to explain the structural/functional aspects of the human condition. In other words, these are the interactions and functions of individual CNS cells - which is generally taken to mean neurons, but which includes other CNS-specific cell types, such as astrocytes and microglia. There are three other levels of neurophysiology to consider when delineating the structural/functional aspects of the human condition: SECONDARY NEUROPHYSIOLOGY: The functions of clusters of individual CNS cells. Meaning the nuclei (ie, nucleus accumbens, etc) but also more distributed collections such as cortical regions (ie, the Brodman areas, for instance). TERTIARY NEUROPHYSIOLOGY: The functions of CNS regions, such as the Prefrontal and Parietal lobes, the Supplementary Motor Area, the Cerebellum, and the Motor Cortex, etc. These may be more structurally envisioned as the Connectomes. QUARTERNARY NEUROPHYSIOLOGY: This structural functional unit delineates the CNS, ANS, and PNS and the other parts of the body, such as the Endocrine System, the GI tract, the Musculo-Skeletal System, etc. These are the more peripheral effects of CNS/ANS/PNS. I submit that these levels of organization powerfully influence what the intra-/intercelular interactions end up producing. For instance, it is possible to understand how the intra-/intercellular actions result in electronic effects such as we see via EEG and MEG. But these intra-intercellular interactions and results are not a reasonable justification for more complicated, or emergent, effects, such as personality and consciousness. There remains a hard problem - and at multiple levels. It is possible, for instance, to separate out the individual cells that make up a liver - such as hepatocytes, bille duct epithelium, smooth muscle, etc. You can even mix them altogether in a flask - but you won’t have a liver. You’ll have cells that make bile, cell that can transport bile without dying, but you won’t have a biliary tract. Please consider that each of the 4 levels of neurophysiology proposed “produce” a variety of things. With the addition of each level’s capacity, something else is produced that is more than that which each level is capable of doing. The combination of levels is a rational, coherent, and consistent foundation for the justification for the emergence of something, or things, which is/are far more complicated than what each level by itself can do or contributes to the whole. The result is far more than an arithmetic sum. Anyway, just some ideas to consider. I hope they are received as well as the collegiality which sent them. Best regards, Waldemar Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD (Perseveret et Percipiunt) 503.631.8044 Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein) > On Mar 17, 2019, at 2:34 PM, Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > Hi John, > [Qualia are a natural consequence of the vertical integration of physiology, along with the historic relationships the organism has experienced. That is particularly true when considering that the brain/mind is the aggregate of that process, so of course perception is affected by that cumulative process...seems logical to me] > > Yes, I completely agree with you, given your abstract definition of qualia, which is very different than the very physically specific way we define qualia and the word "red". > > [I thought my perspective was the minority view in Gregg's camp? or did I misunderstand? Please advise.] > > > The ToK survey topic <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_207-2DTree-2Dof-2DKnowledge-2D-2D-2DToK-2D_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=ubYVLgxTJkhMWmxXwgRhROTg_ePADFmvK_43cmxvz2M&e=> is a different topic that the Theories of Consciousnes <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=FlLVZOX3aLUlhjQeXw8EoEPW8UFbzqqUmBoeHpxB7pE&e=> topic. The First Principles <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_207-2DFirst-2Dprinciples-2Dformulation_4&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=gQZR6Uz2xTEJCVwp4wBIvhoq8SZcqLyEn1T-QFLwzL4&e=> camp of the ToK topic is waiting for you to join, as a supporter. Gregg isn't yet supporting his Standard Formulation <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_207-2DStandard-2Dformulation_3&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=OXkSwKo7ZgcadRsLcQoXZGkdeEs6rHrq9HzdSFQbwlc&e=> camp either, so if you support yours, it will lead in consensus - at least until he supports his camp. Then there will be equal support, until others start supporting one or the other. So if you have registered with Canonizer.com, you can then go to your First Principles <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_207-2DFirst-2Dprinciples-2Dformulation_4&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=gQZR6Uz2xTEJCVwp4wBIvhoq8SZcqLyEn1T-QFLwzL4&e=> camp and click on the "Join or directly support this camp" button in the support section. > > The purpose of the Theories of Consciousnes <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_1&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=FlLVZOX3aLUlhjQeXw8EoEPW8UFbzqqUmBoeHpxB7pE&e=> topic is to build as much consensus as possible arround the best theories of consciousness, especially regarding its qualitative nature. 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=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=9useEsHmYuux-KWeHDMZguYyKl1D7D1o9ZEo5K6lcLM&e=> camp, on that topic is "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=-etuzWJX5E4_mW5hbi3YMj9DPiQrbCXydfbVEOkA9fU&s=piPLwKx0HNbVsBiYdtnX6cBiqTIdn8JGub0JFYJ4mp4&e=>". My way of talking about the qualitative nature of consciousness, and thinking about what is important, comes from this camp. We define qualia to be specific physical qualities we can be directly aware of, like redness and grenness. We use words like "red" and "redness" in different ways than the standard dictionary definition, enabling us to talk about different physical qualities dealing with the perception of "red". Very different than the abstract, undefined way you use words like "red" and "qualia", making it impossible to model the qualitative nature of consciousness. > > If what you say is correct, about the problematic way I (and the supporters of that camp statement) are talking about things, it would be nice to create a competing camp that would include what you think is important, so we could see if anyone else can understand your point of view. Given such competing camps being "canonized", hopefully someone else that understands our differences better than we do, can clear this issue up for us. Or maybe propose some scientific experiment, the results of which could clear things up - forcing us all into one scientific consensus, maybe some day. > > > > Brent > > > > > > > > > > > ############################ > To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to: mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:mailto:[log in to unmask]> or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1 <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