Hi John, Why would you say something like: “Ultimately we die because we cannot defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics forever, preventing the 'natural' dissipation of heat energy through physiology.”] Youthful, healthy life spans are increasing at an accelerating rate, thanks to technology. Once the rate increases beyond more than one year of life / year, we will effectively be immortal. Certainly, at some time in the future, we will be able to completely reconstruct an indistinguishable backup of ourselves. And if one of the (phenomenally communicating consciousness) copies of ourselves happened to be blown to bits, we could just reconstruct that single consciously communicating copy of us, again, right? Even if the entire universe dies a slow “heat death” in a gazillion, gazillion years, there are lots of ideas of how we could still, effectively, survive, even if at an increasingly slow rate of life, forever. So, again, why would you say anything that implies we must die because of the second law of thermodynamics? How would / should the ToK stand on something like this? Must we accept and assume that everyone must always die? Or is this just another terrible mistaken bleating of the naive heard, that is damaging to us, in that it is faithlessly slowing our progress? Brent On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 6:54 AM JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Gregg and TOK, interesting stuff regarding the 'Schnitt' and the role > of semiotics at the Joint Points in the TOK. Thank you for citing my > cellular perspective on all of this, which I arrived at based on > experimental evidence for embryologic development based on cell-cell > communication as the basis for physiology and homeostasis. When all of that > is 'reverse-engineered' by superimposing the developmental processes on > phylogenetic change (i.e. fish to Man) one arrives back at the unicellular > state in the form of the zygote, or fertilized egg as the fusion of two > gene pools. And I have proposed that we never actually leave that > unicellular state, running in place like the Red Queen in Alice in > Wonderland, trying to remain as close to our origins in the First > Principles of Physiology......that idea is based on the emerging discipline > of epigenetic inheritance, the organism acting as a 'vehicle' for > collecting epigenetic marks in the environment to inform the next > generation offspring of changes in the environment. There is a specific > mechanism that sorts out those 'marks' during meiosis that is probably at > the core of what the evolutionary mechanism actually constitutes. At any > rate, the duality of the knower-known, for example, like all of the > dualities generated by the Big Bang of Cosmology, is due to the ambiguity > generated by the formation of the first cell, existing as the interface > between negative Free Energy or Entropy, and the external environment, > which is positive Free Energy or Entropy.And btw, there are direct > homologies between cell physiology and Quantum Mechanics when the process > is seen at this fundamental level. Life is perpetuated by the functional > resolution of that ambiguity over the course of the life cycle, but > ultimately we die because we cannot defy the Second Law of Thermodynamics > forever, preventing the 'natural' dissipation of heat energy through > physiology. But life is perpetuated by reproduction, transferring our > continually edited knowledge of the environment from one generation to the > next by self-engineering, i.e.we 'author' ourselves in sync with the > environment. These concepts are all documented in peer-reviewed Journal > articles and three monographs, soon three more, such as "Evolution, the > Logic of Biology (Wiley, 2017). > > On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:18 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Hi TOK List, >> >> >> >> I spent yesterday afternoon reading an interesting book, Michael >> Gazzaniga’s The Consciousness Instinct. >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Consciousness-2DInstinct-2DUnraveling-2DMystery-2DBrain_dp_0374715505&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VeMLVdkhPMA3ecuVj1YB6QSUzzRPkTtZG9fr18ngoMU&s=ybVdrFWkxt5QwuWZa666QEENmPed6ftS5cSUDkeqfSA&e=> >> For those who don’t know, Michael Gazzaniga is a famous cognitive >> neuroscientist. He worked with Roger Sperry on split brain patients and is >> famous for his “interpreter function” of the left hemisphere. I discuss an >> early book of his here >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201701_the-2Danimal-2Dhuman-2Ddividing-2Dline&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VeMLVdkhPMA3ecuVj1YB6QSUzzRPkTtZG9fr18ngoMU&s=3GwuAQ-ZCxCwg_7mLVo-vmKAyoBHbGxzxRaCRjRRKEs&e=> >> . >> >> >> >> I was finding his newest book interesting, but a bit tedious as the >> first half is essentially a review of ideas about consciousness, such that >> I did not learn much. But it took a fascinating turn in chapter 7, which >> was on the physics concept of complementarity (wave particle duality and >> observer/observed entanglement) and accelerated in an interesting way in >> the next chapter on “Nonliving to Living and Neurons to Mind”. He reviews >> the work of Howard Pattee >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__informatics.indiana.edu_rocha_publications_pattee_index.html&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VeMLVdkhPMA3ecuVj1YB6QSUzzRPkTtZG9fr18ngoMU&s=ZeapA-SAyFE7N0qJKCqVsp8JSghYlaBPSf7oRCp7GC0&e=>, >> who is a retired theoretical physicist turned biologist who pioneered work >> on biosemiotics and what he called the “epistemic cut.” This refers to the >> “unavoidable conceptual separation of the knower and the known” or the >> difference between “the symbolic record of an event and the event itself”. >> Attached is the page from Gazzaniga’s book that describes it. Here is >> another description of the epistemic cut, also called “the schnitt >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.edge.org_response-2Ddetail_27049&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VeMLVdkhPMA3ecuVj1YB6QSUzzRPkTtZG9fr18ngoMU&s=880Ubxt_p_NJ3XjG3KcDCy4PF-f2pP_IMU8Rz2rwxAw&e=>”. >> I had never heard of the term before, but I am very happy to learn of it. >> >> >> >> Here is the basics of what Gazzaniga ends up offering, which I think we >> can make clear with the ToK: Via complementarity and diving into a basic >> understanding of quantum mechanics following the work of Pattee, Gazzaniga >> highlights that there is an object/subject duality everywhere. At the level >> of the quantum, there is the problem of entanglement and superposition. At >> the level of Life, it refers to how cells operate based on semiotics (i.e., >> are information processing and communication systems). For some good quotes >> on how Pattee views the world, see here: >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.informationphilosopher.com_solutions_scientists_pattee_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lvbGw5mSHyoMM_hSc-PMuQfamxi19AHm0i1haB48soE&s=6UtxaEppFtYhMBnfOmZJLTFrP3XUXol6-mtg4RtEd48&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.informationphilosopher.com_solutions_scientists_pattee_&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VeMLVdkhPMA3ecuVj1YB6QSUzzRPkTtZG9fr18ngoMU&s=KVY2PHJ_wFrAo2cycZeoOw6xju_1mSzYgX1CdsUQQSI&e=>. >> Here is a choice one: >> >> >> >> *It is my central idea that the essence of the matter-symbol problem and >> the measurement or recording problem must appear at the origin of living >> matter.* Symbols and records have existed since life existed. If this >> view is correct, then it is a more hopeful strategy to begin by asking what >> we mean by the *first* primitive record rather than question what we >> mean by our most sophisticated and abstract records. In effect, this >> strategy forces us to make an objective criterion for a recording process. >> >> >> >> Why am I excited about this? A couple of reasons. First, given the >> connections between Gazzaniga’s Interpreter and JUST, especially the JH, he >> is headed toward a conception of human self-consciousness that lines up >> directly with the ToK version. But what he is doing is going deep, through >> neuro-mental objective/subjective sentience, into the layer of the cell, >> and into quantum mechanics (much like John Torday does). By following >> Gazzaniga’s line of thought (following Pattee), I can see clearly that what >> he is advocating for connects deeply to two of the things the ToK System >> does, that other systems of knowledge do not. >> >> >> >> First, unlike all other systems, the ToK INCLUDES the human >> knower-known epistemic cut. That is, it includes what I call the “H” >> Factor, which is the Human Knower. The most direct way it achieves this is >> because of the Justification Hypothesis and systems theory. (Please note >> here that a theory of knowledge, epistemology, and a theory of >> justification are almost identical. Via JUST placed on the ToK, I can place >> the evolution of social into formal into scientific epistemology in context >> of the universe—see slide two). >> >> >> >> Second, the ToK also includes a very specifiable relationship between >> information/communication/semiotics and the natural, Newtonian, lawfully >> determined world. That is, it frames and describes the relationship between >> energy, matter, information, and scientific knowledge in a way that no >> other system does. >> >> >> >> See the attached ToK diagram (slide 1), which places the word >> “semiotics” at the joint points, because that is another way of conceiving >> the joint point. That is, Life is Bio-semiotics, Mind is neuro-semiotics, >> Culture is Language-Semiotics. And then there is the semiotics of >> scientific knowledge. Enlightenment 1.0 was based in an inert, general, >> view-from-nowhere knower that could simply observe the fully, lawfully >> determined behavior that was completely reversable across time. However, >> this is NOT how the actual world works. The actual world of scientific >> knowledge embedded in the universe requires clarity about the nature and >> place of the epistemic cut. The ToK shows us how to do that. It shows us >> where the Science Human Knower is in the universe of behavior (the “H” >> factor), and it shows were the observer/observed relations are, from the >> quantum to the living to the mental to the cultural and to the >> meta-Cultural knower. Indeed, the bottom lists “quantum semiotics” as a >> way to note that physicists had to develop a completely different language >> system to talk about the science of quantum mechanics (what Alexander calls >> quantum organics). >> >> >> >> My pitch is that with the ToK (Unified Metaphysical Empirical Language) >> System we finally have a truly holistic picture of the knower/known >> relationship across the various levels and dimensions of complexity. Thus, >> we can bridge the epistemic cut and achieve greater clarity on the deepest >> conceptual problems that have plagued scientists and philosophers since >> formal epistemologies emerged on the scene in the Axial Age >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Axial-5FAge&d=DwMFAg&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VeMLVdkhPMA3ecuVj1YB6QSUzzRPkTtZG9fr18ngoMU&s=6lR1oqoCwOZTn9y_4mD7XXBpjHOpVKiw2azNscXCSis&e=>. >> >> >> >> 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