The representational qualia theory statement links to a paper which
provides the following definitions, including a definition of intersective
knowledge:



“Intentionality, free will, higher order knowledge, *intersubjective
knowledge*, self-awareness, desire, love, spirits… indeed consciousness
itself, are all computational bound composite qualitative knowledge.”



Just wondering if all of you guys would accept these definitions, and if it
would be compatible with the ToK and all that.



I’ve been thinking of attempting to add those definitions in the statement,
itself, to make them more definitive.  Would any of you object to (i.e. be
less included to support) such an inclusion in the actual “Representational
Qualia Theory <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=EvRjRnT2ZhTuoJc9n5mcUKDSgXKeitpxR97nDUPy1Wo&e=>”
camp statement?





Also, we’ve been working to get this information more widely published, but
are having a difficult time, since it is so different than, and
comparatively simple, compare to the way most people think of the “hard
problem” and all that.  It is very hard to stand out from the noise in this
field.  As can still be seen everywhere, almost nobody understands this
information, and everyone, in all peer reviewed journals are still using
terms like “red”, even in peer reviewed journals on neural color visual
perception, in very sloppy ways.  Many people still think abstract
computers could be conscious.  They have no idea how we could tell if a
machine is conscious, or if it was, what it would be like, which this
information clearly objectively answers.



So, it would really help if we could get help from all of you (and your
colleges) by supporting these camps.  This is kind of like signing a
petition.  If we can get enough supporters, eventually peer reviewed
journals, and everyone else, will recognize the validity of this
information, enough to spend the time required to understand it.  Then,
they might be more likely to consider accepting information like this for
publication and reference it in their works (significantly improving most
all of the sloppy stuff.)



For those of you who haven’t yet supported a camp, we could at least use
your signatures in the “Representational Qualia Theory
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DRepresentational-2DQualia_6&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=EvRjRnT2ZhTuoJc9n5mcUKDSgXKeitpxR97nDUPy1Wo&e=>” super camp,
containing these definitions.  Or, if you agree with “Mind Brain Identity
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DMind-2DBrain-2DIdentity_17&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=Q9GYN_WGr6byIFg8BkuCwTbNuekez8rvJNlZYSTJFME&e=>”, we could use your
support in that more specific level.  (Remember, supporting a leaf node
includes your support in all parent camps, up to and including the
agreement statement, so you only need to support leaf nodes of your belief
tree.)



And, Just FYI, below that level, the leading consensus has been “Property
Dualism”.  But people, recently including me, are rapidly abandoning that
camp.  An increasing number of former supporters now consider it to be
falsified.  The competing camps have just joined up to create a new “Monism
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DMonism_65&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=VGFjpL-JjszE3ZbtiMLk1Lbu8oPZieZEurokGpFKZSY&e=>” camp.  This new camp just went
live, today.  With that, monism has almost surpassed “Property Dualism” in
the leading consensus camps but hasn’t yet.  So, if you think Monism is a
better way to think about the so called “hard problem” than “property
dualism” we could really use your support down at that level.



And of course, I’d be very interested to know how many of you are more “
functionalists
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DQualia-2DEmerge-2Dfrom-2DFunction_18&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=w7jvih9izescv6cEFP2B-6KHKEqqrjVFU_e1DESeDAg&e=>” or “
Materialists
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DQualia-2Dare-2DMaterial-2DQualities_7&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=wZjQFiENQAQCjy6qLqJyiz7Os5tRCkl4odl73Anq8ok&e=>”, which I
think is the far better camp, yet still just behind functionalism, consents
wise.  And of course, if you think other camps are better, by all means,
please indicate such by joining other camp, so everyone can know, concisely
and quantitatively, what everyone currently thinks.



Thanks!!



Brent



On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 4:46 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> My excuses, Brent, for the sloppy wording.
>
> With regards to qualia/phenomenal experience, sharing, and
> intersubjectivity, think of it in terms of Venn Diagrams.
> Where my expression of my qualia/phenomenal experience overlaps with your
> understanding of your qualia/phenomenal experience = intersubjectively (you
> and me) sharing a “common” experience.
> They probably aren’t identical but similar enough that we “share” an
> experience - no magic or quantum entanglement involved.
>
> And, yes, definitional clarity is a central requirement!
>
> 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 Apr 29, 2019, at 2:47 PM, Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Oh, there is a Wikipedia entry for intersubjectivity
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Intersubjectivity&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YHUlSdGPwDX0RaaUG0WXvj7wFXUZriRyzexWZdgOpmQ&s=MV8slYBx4AhkZ-o3BS8TEtD7stWSNu8-NGpbeFrAKjo&e=>.
> I didn’t know that.  That helps me understand much better.  But, again, so
> much sloppiness in definition.  For example: “the sharing of subjective
> states by two or more individuals.".  Does this mean the same set of
> physical knowledge bound by magic quantum entanglement, or is it two
> different copies of physical knowledge in each brain?  And “psychological
> energy moving between two or more subjects”…?
>
>
> I guess I’m just hypersensitive to this kind of sloppy talking.  If you
> say it in an ambiguous way, allowing anti scientific people to hide their
> religious beliefs in it, they will most certainly interpret it that way.
> That is the only problem with “qualia”.  Everyone uses the fact that
> science hasn’t yet accounted for them, to justify their crazy anti
> scientific ideas.  Instead of trying to “quine” (ignore) qualia, freeing
> the religious people to go nuts, making any claim they want, we just need
> to point out that there are causal physical qualities we can be directly
> aware of, and use terminology, appropriately, so everything is crystal
> clear and not sloppy.
>
>
> And thanks, Waldemar.  I now know, unambiguously, what you are saying.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 2:36 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> I used a wrong word there - the politicians term that “mis-spoke” - the
>> difference being that I wasn’t trying to lie.
>> Here’s how I would have preferred to state it: But, we cannot *directly* SENSE
>> them.”
>> So, it is my belief that I can directly sense an input which I have
>> learned to interpret as red.
>> The input which I have learned to interpret as green is different that
>> the sense which I interpret to be red.
>> While we might not perceive the “red” as the same red, we can calibrate
>> that sensation as a mutual interpretation of that input as being “red.”
>> As far as I know, there is no real life example of intact individuals
>> having red/green inverted representation.
>> It’s an interesting philosophical query.
>>
>> 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 Apr 29, 2019, at 12:07 PM, Brent Allsop <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Alexander and Waldemar are talking about perception being active,
>> refuting the idea of a passive naive realist
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Na-25C3-25AFve-5Frealism&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xqp4by5Pduc7CWzTt9uuYgi5-yJNTAi-xkWWTfiKtVk&s=L4rOkoemijhluL3FQEteguUR91wu6Kbs6vogxe3hpAQ&e=>
>> view.  But others could have an active view of direct realism
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Na-25C3-25AFve-5Frealism&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xqp4by5Pduc7CWzTt9uuYgi5-yJNTAi-xkWWTfiKtVk&s=L4rOkoemijhluL3FQEteguUR91wu6Kbs6vogxe3hpAQ&e=>.
>> Talking about a “Cartesian theater” is evidence that you are arguing for
>> such an active direct realist view.  But it seems ambiguous, as people
>> could also interpret you as talking about a representational model
>> <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=xqp4by5Pduc7CWzTt9uuYgi5-yJNTAi-xkWWTfiKtVk&s=OryjAjrWbPHQnc9YBXOHNqsQdht93ZiRjmOqlXs8P08&e=>
>> which is similar to, but still different than cartesian dualism.
>>
>>
>> Waldemar Schmidt was talking about things we cannot sense, because they
>> are outside of the range which we can detect.  Then said (*bold *added
>> by me):
>>
>>
>> “We can know that these missed facets of reality exist because we can
>> construct means by which we may measure them.  But, we cannot *directly*
>> perceive them.”
>>
>>
>> This also sounds like a “direct perception
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Na-25C3-25AFve-5Frealism&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=xqp4by5Pduc7CWzTt9uuYgi5-yJNTAi-xkWWTfiKtVk&s=L4rOkoemijhluL3FQEteguUR91wu6Kbs6vogxe3hpAQ&e=>”
>> model, even if it is active.  But it’s hard to know for sure, since the
>> language is similarly ambiguous.
>>
>>
>> In order to not be ambiguous, we need two different words, as labels for
>> two very different physical qualities, when talking about perception.
>>
>>
>>
>>    1. The physical properties that are the target of our observation,
>>    the initial cause of the perception process (i.e. when a strawberry
>>    reflects 650 NM (red) light).
>>    2. The causal physical qualities of the final results of the
>>    perception process, our conscious knowledge of a red strawberry in our
>>    brain we experience *directly* as *redness*.
>>
>>
>> Notice that you cannot “*directly*” perceive “red” things, but you can *directly
>> *perceive our knowledge of such, which has a “*redness*” quality.
>>
>>
>> Given this model, two people could have red green inverted knowledge.
>> These two people could be “calibrated” in that they both call the
>> strawberry red, while at the same time, one’s *redness* is like the
>> other’s *greenness*.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 11:32 AM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And, I pushed the wrong button.
>>> Either that, or my computer doesn’t agree with my thoughts.
>>>
>>> What I meant to add was that I agree that perception is fundamentally
>>> active and not passive. And it is constantly interactive, involved with the
>>> world within which it exists.
>>>
>>> It’s humbling that my computer is smarter than I am! 🤪
>>>
>>> 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 Apr 29, 2019, at 7:24 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I completely agree with Alexander’s comments about the active nature of
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> If you want a quick walk through regarding a ToK and modern perceptual
>>> model of perception, see this blog on Perception and Perceptual Illusions.
>>> This helps with concrete examples to “see” how active perception is:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201305_perception-2Dand-2Dperceptual-2Dillusions&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=6Cdbon6JyKIW-UWHrCstXgdQczKgFkXRGiOEkvHhBlI&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201305_perception-2Dand-2Dperceptual-2Dillusions&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BL3nA39vOXR2RnatE8eN3zlhYDbVO_zrS3YlPLnG5C4&s=JF7WPUvjhWlajxJ7Z0pIauPyq882Od68BLGos80dXCw&e=>
>>>
>>> Also, here is a blog I did on the mind and the concept of informational
>>> interface:
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_intl_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201804_the-2Dhuman-2Dmind-2Dinformational-2Dinterface-2Dapproach&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=eISycs7RqqfF9ef3bElMyIhBSbEasyU8MaVmSvK1TWc&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_intl_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201804_the-2Dhuman-2Dmind-2Dinformational-2Dinterface-2Dapproach&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BL3nA39vOXR2RnatE8eN3zlhYDbVO_zrS3YlPLnG5C4&s=46t2S0dxnJXmEvpa_H3KExl95E91vgqCEc4ig56Bp_8&e=>
>>>
>>> Best intentions,
>>> G
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Alexander Bard
>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 29, 2019 10:19 AM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: The perceptual and socially constructed Nature of
>>> Reality?
>>>
>>> If the assumption is that perception is a passive phenomenon, then it is
>>> best to walk out of one's chair blindfolded and just wait how many seconds
>>> it takes before you stumble into a wall and hit your head big time.
>>> Perception is anything but a Cartesian theater as anybody except an autist
>>> in a wheel chair experiences every minute of their lives. The world is not
>>> frozen for us to passively observe it at a distance. We are involved as
>>> agents in our own perception. So perception is fundamentally active and not
>>> passive. And it is constantly interactive, involved with the world within
>>> which it exists. So any comparison with say virtual reality and computer
>>> games becomes instantly irrelevant as Heidegger would agree. Perception
>>> then walks off and fantasizes about itself in the world but as soon as hard
>>> reality ("the real" in psychoanalysis) hits us again we are forced to alter
>>> our models of the world (and our own place within it). If we get a really
>>> hard hit, and it is collective, then that is called a paradigm shift. We
>>> change world view because we are forced to when the old world view no
>>> longer works or makes sense.
>>>
>>> Best intentions
>>> Alexander
>>>
>>>
>>> Den mån 29 apr. 2019 kl 16:11 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>> Hi TOK List,
>>>
>>>   The “thought of the day” is the question: To what extent do we
>>> perceive reality and to what extent is reality a construction, either at
>>> the level of perceptual consciousness or at the level of the social
>>> construction of reality?
>>>
>>> Brent’s point below is to remind us that our experience of reality may
>>> well be likened to a virtual reality or information interface. Here is a
>>> clip from the article Brent shared, which argues our perceptual world is a
>>> virtual informational representation of the outside world. [It is worth
>>> noting that the basic question regarding the distinction between how things
>>> appear to us and the actual reality outside is, of course, a very old one
>>> in philosophy]. Here are some key quotes from the Wired article:
>>>
>>> “Not only do perceptual systems not evolve to capture the details of the
>>> real world, he argues, there's no reason to believe that the objects that
>>> we see have any correspondence to things that exist outside our minds.”
>>>
>>>  "When you click a square, blue icon to open a document, the file
>>> itself is not a blue, square thing," he says. In the same way the physical
>>> objects that we see are just symbols, and the space-time in which they seem
>>> to exist just on the desktop of our specific interface to some objective
>>> reality beyond. Like any interface, it must stand in causal relationships
>>> to an underlying structure, but it's all the more useful for not resembling
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Let me add to this question perspectives on the
>>> linguistic-social-cultural construction of reality. This is related to
>>> Brent’s comments and the wired article, but it is also different in that
>>> the focus here is more on linguistic concepts and those kinds of meaning
>>> making structures (i.e., systems of justification), rather than
>>> sensory-perceptual phenomena (i.e., experiential consciousness) although,
>>> of course, there are relations between these domains. What follows are two
>>> articles that raise interesting reflections on the social construction of
>>> reality.
>>>
>>> The first is on Mayan culture and their conception of “personhood”. This
>>> gives rise to the question of “To what extent is our construction of
>>> personhood constructed and how might it be constructed differently in
>>> different cultures”
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_ideas_a-2Drock-2Da-2Dhuman-2Da-2Dtree-2Dall-2Dwere-2Dpersons-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dclassic-2Dmaya&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=Zusyg36OIrupP7qCPFD10mMyU9qiKzaLSkkvT4UW4I0&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_ideas_a-2Drock-2Da-2Dhuman-2Da-2Dtree-2Dall-2Dwere-2Dpersons-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dclassic-2Dmaya&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=djw7CMADEzR_jBqJCMb_pQZUTaveP2GD-fbP_wBw3mQ&s=zgGfTYdvlTUHZhigc-kzPmyFxhYmtMAojvhCBTDa2W4&e=>
>>>
>>> The second is about the cultural conceptions and constructions of
>>> fatness, gender and sex:
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__quillette.com_2019_04_26_the-2Dsad-2Dtruth-2Dabout-2Dfat-2Dacceptance_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pchb62FRLBOU7C8kCnoD7w_ZhZFH39KTrGiiCDu47VE&s=O7h4Lll1Sf_yqCOLl3_fKPLQf0DWKk92eHjkE4O3B08&e=
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__quillette.com_2019_04_26_the-2Dsad-2Dtruth-2Dabout-2Dfat-2Dacceptance_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=djw7CMADEzR_jBqJCMb_pQZUTaveP2GD-fbP_wBw3mQ&s=Du-JerxReAoqt2hwXzN-5KdjQvZAtM22OsSXDo-pGGw&e=>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop
>>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 28, 2019 3:54 PM
>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>> *Subject:* Re: use ToK to understand subjective phenomenology and
>>> objective science
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi Gergg,
>>>
>>> That looks nice.  I’m obviously kind of biased, but it seems to me you
>>> are glossing over the qualitative nature of reality, like redness and
>>> greenness.  It seems to me everyone needs to understand that the qualities
>>> we think are qualities of stuff “out there” are really qualities of stuff
>>> in our brain.  We have no ability to perceive qualities of anything ‘out
>>> there”.  For example Donald Hofman really understands this very important
>>> stuff, as you can see in this wired article
>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.wired.co.uk_article_the-2Dreality-2Dof-2Dsurvival&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=OjN5xOiTickcRLf-6DkJ56wcoEKyrYt1wkGyZVFMias&s=PqCFeHwcFLerbCAm8Nn5y7EmBna03vmBH-9G0PPV89s&e=>
>>> .
>>>
>>> Anyway,  my very biased 2 cents worth.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 9:14 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Lists,
>>>   I am working on a blog or general document that attempts to explain
>>> how the ToK System provides a new way to understand both ourselves in the
>>> world and provides a scientific account of the world and our place in it. I
>>> don’t think there is a [synthetic natural scientific humanistic] philosophy
>>> that really does this in a successful way. Some, like Ken Wilber’s Integral
>>> Theory get close. But I think the ToK does this better than any other
>>> system. And that is one of the reasons it is valuable. It offers a much
>>> greater picture of consilience between humanistic and scientific modes of
>>> thought. Attached is a draft. I welcome thoughts if you have them.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Gregg
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> 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