Hi John,
“Perhaps is it blood?” for which “red” is a label for.
You’re still not picking up on how this is sloppy thinking and sloppy definitions about physical qualities. Wouldn’t it be more accurate to state that red is a label for any physical surface that reflects, or emits “red” light? And, again, if you engineered a red green signal inverter in the retina, now your knowledge of the blood (or anything that reflects or emits red light) has a greenness quality. So, does this not prove that it isn’t ‘blood’ that has a physically causal redness (or greenness) quality?
So, if “red” is a label for any physical surface that reflects or emits “red” light, which physical quality is “redness” a label for?
Brent
############################Hi Brent and List, thanks Brent for your patience in trying to understand how my 'take' on evolution differs from Darwin. And yes, your paraphrasing is correct, so I hope that's helpful. And as for 'which quality is red a label for' as I had said, perhaps it is blood? There is an article in the literature that hypothesizes that color vision evolved from blood, which I will try to find. John############################Hi John,
I think I’m starting to better understand what you are saying. Let me see if I can repeat what you are talking about, to see if I’m starting to understand.
Darwinian evolution models only really model things like achieving more offspring. Whereas considering cell-cell communication in embryologic development as central better models homeostasis superimposed on phylogeny. This is a better way to understand the process of evolution.
I still have a question for you, about what you mean when you say: “perhaps we see 'red' when we are writhing in pain because it references bleeding as a process related to pain”. I understand what you mean, abstractly. But I have no idea what you mean, qualitatively. In order to know what red means, qualitatively, you must tell me which physical quality it is a label for. Since you never do this, I can’t know what you mean, qualitatively, when you use the term “red”.
So that is my question, which physical quality do you consider red to be a label for?
############################Dear Gregg, Brent, Aeon and List, if I could just jump in here, much of what is being said by all needs IMHO to be reconsidered in light of the difference between descriptive and mechanistic Biology/Physiology. So for example, semiotics is a description of what I have been referring to with respect to the centrality of cell-cell communication in embryologic development and homeostasis superimposed on phylogeny as the way to understand the process of evolution. That's very different from Darwinian evolution based on a reproductive strategy for more offspring, which is a materialistic viewpoint. In terms of Brent's quest for answering the 'Hard Question' of Qualia, I think the answer lies in the way I have recalibrated Pleiotropy, the capacity of biology to recombine/repermute the same gene for multiple purposes over the course of evolution. Up until now that phenomenon has remained a fascinoma, but seen in the context of evolution, it is explained by the pre-adaptational strategy of reutilizing genes under duress as the most economical way of solving existential problems evolutionarily. In the context of Qualia, perhaps we see 'red' when we are writhing in pain because it references bleeding as a process related to pain, the two processes being linked through common cellular-molecular signaling mechanisms. As for Aeon, I fully ascribe to the idea that we need to address how to re-synthesize philosophy and empiricism if I am correct in thinking that we've gotten evolution 'backwards' and that the unicellular state is the primary level of selection based on the emerging knowledge of epigenetic inheritance. With the Best of Intentions. John########################################################Hi List,
A friend sent this essay in Aeon on the relationship between philosophy and science and the need to return to a natural philosophy approach:
I am on Maxwell’s Friends of Wisdom list as I became aware of his work several months ago. It is a similar, although also different vision for philosophy and science than the ToK System offers.
Best,
G___________________________________________
Gregg Henriques, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Graduate Psychology
216 Johnston Hall
MSC 7401
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807
(540) 568-7857 (phone)
(540) 568-4747 (fax)
Be that which enhances dignity and well-being with integrity.Check out my Theory of Knowledge blog at Psychology Today at:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge
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