Thanks for this paper, Waldemar. It is fascinating. It is also the case that because I have been spending more time lately in “humanistic language systems”, I want to make a comment about it from a meta-language system view point. To do so, we need to locate the “language game” of this article. It is squarely in the scientific language system. That is, of course, all well and good, but I am convinced we should be differentiating the science language game from the humanistic. One of the things I now see as the great error of modernity is that the scientific language game became so powerful that it started to become believed that it was the only “real and true” justification system. Which, of course, is not “true” at all. It is the best justification systems for determining the “habits of nature” as Alexander Bard would say; but that is not the same thing as Truth across all domains of life. It is perhaps useful to place it in the scientific language system. From a ToK vantage point, the primary placement of the language game the authors are using is in the PTB dimension 3, levels 1 & 2. That is, it is operating off of a neuroscience into a cognitive-behavioral-neuroscience perspective<https://www.gregghenriques.com/uploads/2/4/3/6/24368778/periodic_table_of_behavior4b.pdf>. In addition, because it is concerned with psychopathology, it is operating in the context of “applied” human science, that of psychiatry and clinical psychology. That means that there are meta-value systems operating that frame the discourse in addition to the basic value of the accurate and reliable descriptions and explanations of behavior (the rules of basic science). Such values determine that which is disordered/pathological from that which is normal/functional/desirable. For clarity, when I say a science language game, I am saying that it operates off a scientific assumptions, methods and theory of reality, which is what the ToK tries to map holistically. That is, an objective, realist, truthful, intersubjective/public set of models that offer generalizable statements of patterns and processes (i.e., behaviors broadly defined). The ToK maps the ontic reality on the left and the scientific onto-epistemological schemas and models on the right (the empirical methods of science are the processes by which the theoretical models are corresponded to the data systematically drawn from reality to determine validity of the proposed model). The ToK also clearly specifies that science is a particular kind of language game/knowledge-justification system that emerges out of Culture. I am being specific about this because I am teaching a course on the nature of science writ large and wanting to sharping my discourse on the nature of the scientific language game in relation to the humanistic ones. As I have suggested in my “Behavior, Spirit and Morality” conception, it seems that there are at least two humanistic language games that are qualitatively different from the scientific language game. One of which is the idiographic, unique, particular, first person perspective (spirit) and the other is the interpersonal/intersubjective shared notion of moral/ethical/normative/right-wrong notions. We should be very clear in a wholistic scientific humanistic philosophy (what Zak Stein is referring to as a metapsychology) that these are separate systems of justification. Best, Gregg ___________________________________________ 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 Check out my webpage at: www.gregghenriques.com<http://www.gregghenriques.com> From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Waldemar Schmidt Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2019 5:41 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: On the concept of sovereignty Dear TOKers: In the previous email I suggested that connectomics might be important in providing further understanding of how the embodied emergence of consciousness concept (Mascolo & Kallio) plays a role in brain/mind function vis-à-vis PCT (perceptual control theory) as a “coordinating” factor. Attached is a paper proposing how connectomes might play a role in brain/mind operations in psychopathology. IMportantly, how we use our mind/brain influences the connectomes and these are important to the function of the mind/brain we have available for use. Plausibly, this would apply to both those instances of a “broken brain” (ie, mental disease of demonstrated etiology) and the more frequently encountered “disorders” of mind/brain function produced by otherwise “intact” brains (ie, mental disorders or the various neuroses). Our ability to alter connectomes as a result of brain/mind use and/or injury/disease (ie, plasticity) is important in terms of consequent psychopathologic behavior. The Mascolo/Kallio concept clearly notes that the emergent consciousness interacts to bring multiple psychological functions in the generation of behavior. No surprise then that the resultant output is dimensional rather than categorical - for both normative and psychopathologic behaviors - whether or not a “broken brain” is involved. In roundabout way, one might reasonably conclude that such connections play a role in how the mind/brain functions which produce normative behavior. Best regards, Waldemar ############################ 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 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 Sep 15, 2019, at 3:08 PM, Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Gregg and fellow TOKers: I have enjoyed the comments each has shared on the Mascolo & Kallio paper. The discussions about determinism, free will, etc, has been interesting to follow. Thank you each for sharing your insights. I agree that the paper being discussed is significant. However, it seems my response to the paper has been quite different from that of others. Likely, that is due, at least in part, to my protracted work in and study of human pathology, where there is typically more stress on processes than philosophy. My perception is that the concept, and processes proposed for embodied emergence of conscious agency is a further detailing or explication of perceptual control theory. To me, it appears that perceptual control theory, as presented in Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perceptual_control_theory<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Perceptual-5Fcontrol-5Ftheory&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pWLbnZM1ABsWl9a_GarKo_W0MK-JAOFTRnl4_HmJbY0&s=lcB47-tJhckEyog09bcbt43gK4DlPxBsY7mbC_RAzKQ&e=>), is a macro-scale clarification of the mind’s processes regarding evaluation, decision-making, and action, whilst embodied emergence of consciousness is a meso-scale elucidation in greater detail of how perceptual control appears to work with and upon other systems. Presumably, connectomics would provide a micro-scale (or, at least, a micro-meso-scale) illumination of how the various other systems are entailed as a consequence of embodied consciousness. As a result we may appropriately apprehend consciousness not as a driving or controlling force on behavior but rather as the means by which various sensory inputs and their derived perceptions are brought into a focused awareness. Consciousness then may be seen as the person’s experience of what may be termed intentional attention. That is, consciousness is an experience of conscious, and subconscious, intentional attention rather than a control mechanism - it is the result of a process some of which we experience consciously and which serves to focus attention on what processes need to be recruited to attend to that which is at hand. Libet’s famously mis-interpreted findings (http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/ccs/Libet1985UcsCerebralInitiative.pdf<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__selfpace.uconn.edu_class_ccs_Libet1985UcsCerebralInitiative.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=pWLbnZM1ABsWl9a_GarKo_W0MK-JAOFTRnl4_HmJbY0&s=faQRHKs5JNESfuibZ9mP8PxehvRowpycQE_O7V8vmrU&e=>) suggest that such attention occurs in both the subconscious and the conscious minds. That is, there is also a subconscious form of intentional attention - which also is not the controlling element of behavior. Rather, as a consequence of both forms of attention we decide what is needed to be done to acquire the desired situational perception in terms of affect, cognition, and behavior. I agree that determinism is a form of soothsaying, perhaps even the quintessential plea of victim mentality. Given the complexity of human experience, the opaqueness of the subconscious, and the multiplicity of human needs it is not surprising at all that results or outcomes are un-pre-stateable. The outcome is particularly emergent and in-deterministic when one also factors in the recursive nature of the human mind. Although the embodied conscious likely is able to “overcome” the unconscious, intentional attention we might not have or practice as much “conscious free will” as we would like to think that we do. There’s the rub, eh? Within the subconscious, Shealy’s "personal BS content" comes to play, silently and unknown, upon our careful plans to act. And, perhaps, that’s why I came to write this and why I hope to elicit comment. 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 Sep 14, 2019, at 9:52 AM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Alexander, I have come to consider determinists to be low-grade soothsayers. They claim that the future is written but then won’t tell us what it is. It’s a total rip off. Peter Peter Lloyd Jones [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 562-209-4080 Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. On Sep 14, 2019, at 12:25 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Dear Friends Another term for this indeterminism beyond the determinism versus indeterminism deadlock is transdeterminism. Transdeterminism is where we arrive when we have two time dimensions and both operate indeterministically (precisely because one can not dictate the other) and the laws of nature must be understood merely as habits of nature within specific emergence vectors and not as universal laws (which would require that they be determined prior to what they affect). Think Charles Sanders Peirce taken to his most Whiteheadian extreme. Indeterminism requires contingency as the meta-law. Transdeterminism is even beyond such a meta-law. Nothing is not determined as much as the whole issue of determination is dissolved. I believe this is what Kaufman means when he says that what evolves evolves unprestatably. With an even further twist. Can somebody please provide Kauffman with some Penrosian big bounce theory? Best intentions Alexander Bard Den fre 13 sep. 2019 kl 21:06 skrev Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: Peter, The concept was from Stuart Kaufman in his recent work, The World Beyond Physics (2019). Here is the quote… But what evolves cannot be said ahead of time: what evolves emerges unprestatably—I know of no better word—and builds our biosphere of increasing complexity. It refers to the idea that the future of emergence is not only not determined, it is of such a mystery that is simply cannot be stated what will come about. Best, Gregg From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones Sent: Friday, September 13, 2019 1:16 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: On the concept of sovereignty Cory, I am hoping that it reminds you that Schrodinger’s cat was meant to reveal the fallacy of applying quantum physics to the robust physical world in which we make choices. Gregg, Un-pre-stateable? Does that mean that we cannot dependably reveal potential? Peter Peter Lloyd Jones [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 562-209-4080 Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. On Sep 12, 2019, at 8:03 PM, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: @ Gregg The un-pre-stateable concept immediately reminds me of Schrodinger’s cat. Cory On Sep 12, 2019, at 4:08 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: The emergentist biologist has a nice word for the fact that the universe is not pre-determined. He argues it is not only not pre-determined, it is “un-pre-stateable” because of the nature of unpredictable emergences… G From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> On Behalf Of Peter Lloyd Jones Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2019 4:04 PM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: On the concept of sovereignty Hi Cory, As per your suggestion, I think it is best to keep free will and determinism as two separate arguments. Free will does not have too be a proof for the invalidity of determinism, but after everything else is said it can be spoken of how free will does contradict determinism. As you say, there can be degrees of freedom. I think that we all regularly witness this. The problem with determinism is that there cannot be degrees of determinism. That’s a conceptual contradiction. We will need to toss out many words if the universe is determined: choice, choosing, chaos, chance, probability, accident, serendipitous, hope, achievement, failure... Peter Peter Lloyd Jones [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 562-209-4080 Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. On Sep 12, 2019, at 3:37 PM, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: @ Peter Eeva and I had a lot of conversations about recursive systems because it is a major part of my own work. My thinking has been that if an agent can self-reference, then it determines itself. But… if an agent determines itself, then isn’t that kinda the definition of free will? My best guess has been that the truth is to be found by treating the positions of free-will and determinism as two halves of a greater whole – which is admittedly hard to imagine, since everything we learn about it derives from a historically endless series of literary squabbles that we inherit from the literature, which fogs our vision on the matter. Of course the issue is nuanced, and there are degrees of freedom, as is exemplified in nonlinear systems theories, and well-defined in phase space mathematics. Cory On Sep 12, 2019, at 2:59 PM, Peter Lloyd Jones <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi, Greg, and others, Thank you for sharing the intriguing article by Mascolo and Kallio. It was a difficult but inspiring read, though I do not agree with how the “three perennial problems” that need to be addressed are presented: 1.) the dualism of the mental and physical, 2.) that it’s problematic that people argue for the existence free will, 3.) the role of consciousness. My thoughts are, in short, 1.) we are physical beings, 2.) there is no reason to doubt our conscious agency that we minute by minute witness, and 3.) consciousness is not the measure of autonomy because many free acts are accomplished without reflection and even Libet disagrees with the determinist interpretation of his experiment. I am guessing that my primary difficulty here, and with your subsequent blog, is that I do not agree that the concept of determinism is compatible with the laws of physics. Meanwhile, despite claims by determinists, free will can exist in a material world and is compatible with the laws of physics. Determinism is a claim about the future, so it is unobservable, unrepeatable, and untestable, and there is useful evidence for doubting it. The premise of the essay by Mascolo and Kallio is; “While consciousness contributes to the production of novel action, it cannot do so autonomously.” (p454-455) This is claimed to be true because “…consciousness is itself an emergent product of nonconscious processes.” But what if consciousness can get in front of the nonconscious processes from which it emerges? What if a “non-autonomous” consciousness chooses to have experiences that alter the biological nonconscious processes from which the consciousness emerges? What if this newly biologically altered “non-autonomous” consciousness then decides to have more experiences that then alter the whole of the embodied biological emergent processes? At what point can one be considered an autonomous agent making free conscious choices that continuously manipulate one’s biological nonconscious processes that in turn manipulate the embodied emergence of one’s (biological) consciousness? In other words, if we are free to alter the environments that alter our biological functions, are we not equally as free to consciously alter the interior environment of our(biological)selves? I am not positing here that there needs to be a specific goal in the alterations, but that even change itself can be a goal. Again, thank you for all that you share. Peter Peter Lloyd Jones [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> 562-209-4080 Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. On Sep 12, 2019, at 1:57 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi TOK List, FYI, I put up a blog today that combines Mascolo and Kaillo’s paper with Jordan Hall’s concept of sovereignty: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201909/the-concept-sovereignty<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_201909_the-2Dconcept-2Dsovereignty&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=oTyauDCrbR6EsgDU3ticPOzzfx9nZjyxTc2l0xHX0fw&s=VkwdlXyHMe2vKcETFaU7yuJm2BC99-BJ5Ek1rnJdtuE&e=> I think the combination provides a nice, useful picture of self-conscious agency and responsibility. Best, Gregg ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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 ############################ 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