Dear John Good. But as expected the terms "emergence", "information", and even "singularity" now have so many different meanings that it has all become an incredibly complex mess to sort out. Physics and biology are even at massive verbal odds with each other. And why the laws of The Universe (or rather the habits of the Universe) do not apply to its surface can easily be shown by the Universe's own capacity to expand way faster than light. This is why inflation theory makes sense in physics. Best intentions Alexander Den fre 1 mars 2019 kl 17:22 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: > My replies in [brackets].... > > > *Can I just ask you how the terms "information" and "emergence" relate to > your vision of cellular evolution?* > > [Emergence is the capacity of the biologic system to recall its > evolutionary history and select some genetic trait that it had used > previously in another context, what is referred to in the literature and by > me and numerous others as serial pre-adaptations and by Stephen K Gould > as Exaptations.] > [Information is what is communicated between cells in cell-cell > communication. It is the foundation of embryologic development, > homeostasis, injury-repair and evolution alike] > > *And what exactly is this "equal and opposite reaction to The Big Bang"? > In what way does this reaction exist within and in what way outside of our > current Universe?* > > [I have exploited the serial pre-adaptation concept to reverse-engineer > evolution successfully. That reduction landed me in the unicellular origin > of life, raising the question as to what was pre-adaptation for the cell? > Since the cell is a 'unity', as is the Singularity, I have hypothesized > that the Singularity was/is the prototype for the cell as a > self-referential, self-organizing structure. So then the question that > arose was what was the pre-adaptation for homeostasis, which is just > accepted as dogma. Moving forward from the Singularity to the Big Bang, it > seemed reasonable to hypothesize that there was an 'equal and opposite > reaction' to that explosion based on Newton's Third Law of Motion, and that > homeostasis as a force would have provided the mechanism for forming matter > from energy (E=mc2), as it does in both chemical reactions and in > embryologic development alike. The energy of reaction is more evident in a > chemical reaction, but it also is needed for embryogenesis, and appears as > high energy phosphates that mediate cell-cell interactions (cyclic > Adenosine Monophosphate, Inositol Phosphate, which mediate cell-cell > signaling as what are called 'second messengers'). > > But I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that I am not > talking about Shannon Information Theory, which is characteristic of > synchronic, descriptive Biology. The information is only the medium for > communication, the latter being consistent with diachronic, across > space-time evolution (because of the pre-adaptation aspect) as a *process*, > analogous with cell-cell signaling, not a *thing*, like Information. > Ultimately, the communication expressed in Biology is that which connects > us to the Consciousness formed by the Cosmos.] > > *The laws of the Universe known by us from its inside do after all not > apply to its surface (and beyond).* > > [I don't understand this comment....please explain so I can reply, or was > I not supposed to?] > > On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 10:24 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> > wrote: > >> Can I just ask you how the terms "information" and "emergence" relate to >> your vision of cellular evolution? >> And what exactly is this "equal and opposite reaction to The Big Bang"? >> In what way does this reaction exist within and in what way outside of our >> current Universe? >> The laws of the Universe known by us from its inside do after all not >> apply to its surface (and beyond). >> Best intentions >> Alexander >> >> Den fre 1 mars 2019 kl 16:02 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: >> >>> Darwinian evolution is random mutation, Natural Selection, Descent with >>> Modification and Survival of the Fittest. Cellular evolution is based on >>> the self-engineering of the cell from lipids in water, cell-cell >>> communication, endogenization of the environment, and most importantly, >>> cellular cooperativity for metabolic drive. And all of those >>> characteristics are controlled by homeostasis, initiated by the 'equal and >>> opposite reaction' to the Big Bang. So my opponents start from now and work >>> backwards to 'then', which is reasoning after the fact. I have rejiggered >>> evolution by combining the mechanism of development with that of phylogeny >>> as the 'short-term' and 'longterm' histories of the organism. By reversing >>> that sequence of events as serial adaptations 180 degrees, one can now see >>> evolution mechanistically from its origins. That perspective allows for an >>> integrated way of understanding ethics/mores.... I hope that made sense. jst >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:27 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Correct! >>>> However considering human beings as tribal creatures where Civilization >>>> is the project of "becoming more adult than adult" and seeing "trading with >>>> the stranger" as superior to "killing the stranger" due to civilizational >>>> abundance rather than lack is a formidable foundation for ethics. The >>>> Zoroastrians have practiced such an intertribal ethics for 3,700 years >>>> (without moralism or commandments) and it is a worldview we can learn >>>> tremendously from. >>>> So how do you differentiate between Darwinian evolution and cellular >>>> evolution? Maybe most important here is your definition of the stance of >>>> your opponents. >>>> Best intentions >>>> Alexander >>>> >>>> Den fre 1 mars 2019 kl 14:07 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: >>>> >>>>> Dear Alexander, thank you for your supportive words. Regarding the >>>>> place for ethics in such a restructuring of thought about consciousness, I >>>>> am in the process of writing a book Chapter on the subject. If you start >>>>> from the premise that cellular cooperativity is the fundament of >>>>> multicellularity, mediated by cell-cell communication, I think that >>>>> ethics/morality is a contingency for that initiative. If there weren't such >>>>> altruisim, multicellularity could not exist, if you get my drift. I think >>>>> that seeing the origins of ethics/morality/altruism from this perspective >>>>> helps to make the analysis more objective than to start after the fact with >>>>> civilized society. In this vein, I remember a report on the news about a >>>>> child falling into a Silver Back gorilla's cage, and everyone marveling >>>>> that the animal protected the child. Or for that matter the Cardiologist at >>>>> UCLA who initiated the Evolutionary Medicine Program, marveling at the >>>>> commonalities between a monkey with a heart condition she ministered to at >>>>> the LA Zoo and human cardiology.......so sad, but happy that she has used >>>>> that experience to initiate the program merging evolution and medicine at >>>>> my campus. Of course I'm the only one in the Program not espousing >>>>> Darwinian evolution, but I have been able to make my point about cellular >>>>> evolution nonetheless. I distinctly remember the philosopher Derek Parfit >>>>> being profiled in the New Yorker on the subject of 'Being Good' several >>>>> years ago. At one point he says that he cannot reconcile 'being good' with >>>>> Darwin....right on! >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 7:48 AM Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Dear John >>>>>> >>>>>> You have convinced me that it makes sense moving from >>>>>> "self-consciousness" to "awareness" as the defining principle for >>>>>> "consciousness" as such. >>>>>> Especially as "the self" is only a later add-on or by-product to >>>>>> "consciousness" as "awareness". >>>>>> This also makes the concept of "attention" very interesting as the >>>>>> word in its original French form means "awareness" multiplied with >>>>>> "credibility". >>>>>> And it is with "memory" that "consciousness" needs to develop a "a >>>>>> sense of self" as the foundation for its valuation or hierarchization slash >>>>>> credibility-attaching to the various fields, forces and objects surrounding >>>>>> it. >>>>>> We can even build an ethics of consciousness based on this assumption >>>>>> or shift. Well done, brother! >>>>>> >>>>>> Big love >>>>>> Alexander >>>>>> >>>>>> Den tors 28 feb. 2019 kl 21:14 skrev JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> 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