CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi folks. On the justification issue, some of you already know this (apologies for the repeat), but I had a chance to speak one-on-one with Jane Goodall two years ago when we were awarding her an honorary doctorate from my university. I had the chance to ask her directly about her understanding of chimpanzees and their manner of handling conflicts. She described their communication patterns and the contexts within which the behavioral responses unfolded. Absolutely fascinating. Then I chose to ask her more directly if she sensed or could interpret whether the chimpanzees communicated any type of "justification" for their actions or provided some type of rationale thru their communications to in some way "defend" their position or behavior. She immediately understood what I was asking and, just as quickly, responded (I'm paraphrasing): "Absolutely not. I could see nothing in their communication that would indicate some kind of justification. They were clearly unhappy at times and developed some patterned responses, but that's as much as I could tell." In short, she was conveying to me that as "human-like" as the chimpanzees were in some respects, there's also a clear gap even with her experience and intimate knowledge between humans and chimpanzees. That said, I understand that we are still by virtue of our social locations as observing and understanding from an "etic" perspective - and that not even Jane Goodall could truly understand chimpanzees from an "emic" perspective. But she did seem to think there's a fundamental gap, even still, between chimpanzees and humans. That could change with evolution, of course. Just takes a long time!
Best, -Joe
Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
Professor
King’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
Tel: (519) 433-3491
Email: [log in to unmask]
______________________
eiπ + 1 = 0
############################
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> on behalf of Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, October 18, 2020 8:22 AM
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Sensemaking Episodes on the Stoa############################Eric,
Yes, please see the Stoa podcast #2. I am aware of the animal language studies. The most amazing, IMO, is Alex the grey parrot. Anyway, I worked closely with Sue Savage Rumbaugh for several years and we devised outlines of proposals to see if we could determine if bonobos might be able to justify their actions. She thought they could, but I was and remain skeptical. Unfortunately, unrelated disruptions at the Great Ape Trust derailed our collaborations, and we have not been in contact since 2010…
Also, human language is almost certainly PRE-agrarian. I don’t know of any account that places it post-agrarian industrial. (Keep in mind, writing is ~5,000 years old). Late blooming language accounts are in the ~50,000 years ago. Some early accounts push it back to 500,000 or even 1,000,000. The Unified Theory argues for a fractured symbolic communication sometime between 500,000 and 50,000 with the propositional language tipping point happening by 50,000 and that is the game changer that essentially adds a second mind (i.e., Mind3 and the Culture Person plane) to our primate mind, resulting in a qualitative shift (because Cultural and technological evolution then spin us out of the normal evolutionary balance and we spread like a virus across the planet).
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of easalien
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 3:51 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Sensemaking Episodes on the Stoa
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hey Gregg,
Thanks for the response. It explains a great deal.
1. Language: Will have to learn more about the unified theory. I agree language is a leap in evolution. However, in this case, I’m reminded of case-studies involving Koko, the gorilla who learned sign-language. It just seems the more we learn, the less special we become. Maybe our capacity for language is just naturally-selected niche-making behavior in post-agrarian industrial society. Will check out the new video when it’s posted.
2. Joint Points: Glad for the clarification. These frames are useful placeholders until a fuller theory is developed. However, based on research, it appears these joint points correspond to similar physical events, i.e. broken symmetries. That means it can be tested, or at least described mathematically (to a point). The TOK may be able to answer these fundamental questions.
3. There was a rapid run-through of the Garden I found difficult to follow. However, appreciate the link you provided. Not suggesting errors in the TOK, just that a slightly different perspective would provide a future culmination point: the Singularity, time-like in nature similar to what preceded the Big Bang.
I agree with both you and Rob that a Fundamental Shift is taking place. We’re reevaluating relationships with one another, society, environment, and with ourselves. Grateful such a group exists where we can voice our thoughts in these chaotic times.
Sincerely,
Eric
On Saturday, October 17, 2020, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Hi Eric,
Thanks for these questions.
- I believe the question was sparked by this article on “sensory consciousness” in crows and evidence that they know that recognize an experience (i.e., with training, they can have conscious access to their subjective experience). It was a good article and an interesting experiment. It offers very strong evidence for subjective experience in crows. I would have been amazed if crows did not have subjective experience. Indeed, I believe it is likely subjective experience may go all the way “down” to insects. Here is a book on the evolution of sensory consciousness.
1a. Sensory consciousness is what I call “experiential consciousness” and corresponds to Mind2 in the language of the unified theory. That is different than Mind3, which emerges as a function of language in an explicitly aware intersubjective environment that uses propositions and requires individuals to give accounts for their action. From a ToK/UTOK vantage point, it is CRUCIAL to differentiate sensory/experiential consciousness from linguistically mediated self-consciousness. Bottom line is that we share in a largely continuous fashion experiential/sensory consciousness with many animals, but only humans are persons that have the fully developed capacity for self-conscious narration. The talk I gave this past week at the Stoa was on JUST and what makes human consciousness so different. I encourage you to check that out when it is posted.
- The joint points are frames of understanding. No joint point can be considered to be complete. Quantum mechanics, general relativity and the Big Bang form the first Energy-to-Matter joint point. It is framed but not solved. Likewise, natural selection, genetics and cell (including epigenetic physiological developmental considerations) FRAME the evolutionary synthesis, but it is not complete. Behavioral Investment Theory frames the Life-to-Mind joint point that links behavioral selection, neurocomputation and whole brain activity, but it is not a complete understanding (still many mysteries about sentience, for example). JUST/JH frames the Mind-to-Culture joint point and boxes in language, justification processes, human self-consciousness and the evolution of the Culture-Person plane, but again many questions unanswered.
- There have been many additions to the model. Its first publication is the Tree of Knowledge System and the Theoretical Unification of Psychology. That specifies only the first three key ideas of what becomes the Eight Key Ideas that make up the Unified Theory of Knowledge. The Garden—which represents the full system--has even more elements to it. There have been minor revisions, such as the fact that what I used to call the “Justification Hypothesis” is now Justification Systems Theory. I have not found many errors in the original formulation. Mostly adjustments to accommodate and assimilate and integrate more knowledge.
3a. Note that the ToK/UTOK by no means says the progression is inevitable. If we blow ourselves up tomorrow with a nuclear holocaust, all you do is remove the Culture and most of the Mind layers (i.e., assuming that all people and most animals go extinct following a nuclear Armageddon…maybe the cockroaches would find a path). Death is when the complexity bubbles pop. Thus, when I die, my Life-Mind-Culture systems of complex adaptation “pop” and what remains is my body operating at the Matter dimension.
3b. The 5th joint point is the way I describe the current situation we find ourselves in. There are needed developments in both our knowledge systems and how we conceive of our identities and how we raise our children. I love Rob’s Fundamental Shift because he points to many ways of being that fall under what I call a “Meta-Cultural Consciousness” kind of awakening. We need to put our Energy into that direction, which yields the fun “equation” of E=>MC2
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of easalien
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2020 12:04 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: TOK: Sensemaking Episodes on the Stoa
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of JMU. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hey Gregg,
Great presentation. As a new student of the TOK, was wondering if you could help clarify some questions I was having:
1. Animal Consciousness: One participant mentioned an article concerning consciousness in crows. Was wondering if you considered higher-order functions in human beings a difference in degree or a difference in kind.
2. Joint Points: As major unresolved problems in physical/behavioral sciences, do these joint points represent similar processes? Does the TOK potentially answer these questions or is that left to respective experts? Also, are the solutions important to fully understanding the TOK?
3. Have there been any revisions/additions to the model since it was first published? The hierarchical nature implies evolution towards higher-order processes, but is there a point at which it terminates, e.g. social stagnation, death, etc.? Had an insightful conversation with Rob, and viewing the TOK from “above” allows the model to culminate at its source—completing the system. Wondering your thoughts on this interpretation.
Hope to hear from you. Appreciate your insight on the matter.
Eric
On Wednesday, October 14, 2020, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <[log in to unmask]> wrote:Hi TOK Folks,
Here is the link to my first session on the Stoa:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPiSjWIY_mE
I am up again tomorrow at 2:00 pm. It is on Justification Systems Theory. I did a run through which I can share here for folks who are interested, but won’t make the live show:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XIP8swR1lf2Ug2OxDEkJHAT7BK859ZUI/view?usp=sharing
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 the Unified Theory Of Knowledge homepage at:
https://www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org/
############################
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