Hi List, For the most up-to-date ToK argument for why we should be thinking about science in terms of behavior, see the attached paper, Defining Behavior (coauthored with Joe Michalski). It is a revision under review at Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Sciences. It argues that there is a methodological (and epistemological) meaning of behavior in science that essentially translates into Wilber’s point about interior/1st person/phenomenological versus exterior/3rd person/behavioral view. The attached article on the self makes similar points. This is the idea that science is dependent at some level on public observation and measurement. This perspectival issue relates to the hard problem of consciousness I outline in this blog as problem 6a1<https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/theory-knowledge/201812/10-problems-consciousness>. The paper also argues that, scientifically speaking, there are different kinds of behaviors in nature. This is what we call the ontological problem. And we argue that the Periodic Table of Behavior<https://www.gregghenriques.com/uploads/2/4/3/6/24368778/periodic_table_of_behavior4b.pdf> shows that the empirical sciences can be readily organized as studying behavioral phenomenal (i.e., patterns and functional forms) at various levels and dimensions of complexity. Per usual, all this means that there are lots of angles to consider. The ToK argues that we should think about science as a particular kind of language game. It develops models/theories of ontic realities via scientific epistemology and empirical methods. I argue that the key/deep/foundational (metaphysical) concept is “behavior” which includes and ties together objects, fields, changes and measurement. We can consider these Kantian-like categories of the scientific mind. Note that the language game/justification of science is not the only game in town. Best, Gregg From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Alexander Bard Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2019 2:42 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Rocks, Plants, Animals, Humans Yes, exactly. It is quite shocking to see such ancient ideas overtaking physical science at such a rapid pace. Ironically this last evolution is a result of the shift from string theory to loop quantum gravity as the fundamental theory of physics. I was never much a fan of string theory to begin with. It is complete and utter dependence on background made it all look so theatrical. Loop quantum gravity and big bounce theory though are completely fluid and relationalist. As physics after Einstein's Leibnizian revolution should be. Best intentions Alexander Den tis 3 sep. 2019 kl 20:33 skrev Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: @ Alexander I wasn’t judging validity of beliefs, just describing them. Thanks for noting and sharing Penrose relevance. Cyclical time is very ancient, I think the earliest notions of cyclical time go back to Upanishads and Jainists. Maybe you or others know of earlier notions. Cory On Sep 3, 2019, at 2:09 PM, Alexander Bard <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Dear Cory Since Mattias Bojowald presented his equations to Roger Penrose and Lee Smolin on the big bounce, the big bang theory is more or less dead. Penrose started this whole new trend in physics with his book "Cycles of Time". There are no zeroes and no infinity singns in the universe. As should have been expected. The big bang only ended up in mathematics the way it did because it never happened. Get used to the idea of a massive pulse as universe. And therefore at least two time dimensions, one of them preceding the big bounce itself. Best intentions Alexander Bard Den tis 3 sep. 2019 kl 18:41 skrev Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: @ Gregg Organicism takes the position that the entire universe is fundamentally organismic. Panpsychism takes the position that the entire universe is fundamentally a mind. Pantheism takes the position that the entire universe is fundamentally god. So in contrast, materialism takes the position that the entire universe is fundamentally physical. In all cases, science hits a brick wall at the big bang because science requires tangible things to measure, and in scientific cosmogonic models, before the big bang there isn't anything tangible. Of course, just because we can’t measure something, doesn’t mean it isn’t real, but that can be a slippery slope that invites all manner of projection. Cory On Sep 3, 2019, at 9:54 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Hi List, I was having an interesting conversation with Alexander B. who was making the case that it might help folks to better understand my system if they started with the basics and used basic language. I shared with him the fact that when my daughter Syndey was four she came to me out of the blue and said, “Look, Daddy, I drew your work! See, rocks, plants, animals, people!” See the attached. It was interesting to juxtapose that conversation with an exchange on a list of philosophers I am on that was debating the meaning of the terms “physicalism” and “materialism” and exploring what is called The Galileo Commission<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.galileocommission.org_wp-2Dcontent_uploads_2019_04_Science-2DBeyond-2DA-2DMaterialist-2DWorld-2DView-5Fcompressed.pdf&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6fajGDnEFWDKecKdAYJk3Pi20aSn9oVOwbuWWgtYh8k&s=cIhLfsMR-nLBGR7cDNs2Svt86hqvL-WYQ5QamUA_6MY&e=>, subtitled “Beyond a Materialist Worldview”. I wrote to the list and shared the ToK perspective and asked if they would consider the ToK to be a materialist/physicalist worldview or not. (I don’t think there is much core agreement about what that is, other than that it rejects the dualistic supernatural view). 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<tel:(540)%20568-7857> (phone) (540) 568-4747<tel:(540)%20568-4747> (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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_blog_theory-2Dknowledge&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=6fajGDnEFWDKecKdAYJk3Pi20aSn9oVOwbuWWgtYh8k&s=BNdV7GsACjS8gG5GerRjSYaQeV9H5dXZ17Gb5RSXKb4&e=> ############################ 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 <Rocks Plants Animals People.pptx> ############################ 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