Gregg, Physics (physicists) is universal & neither eastern nor western. Consciousness as deduced in my work is valence, a quantum perturbation from a system's state cascaded across complexity (higher & higher) to the top. And brain is a mere processor of accumulated & cascaded information. A smartphone is a device that can be used to do a number of things, but only when a source of data is available. Consciousness is the internal data source, while brain is processor. Any other processor, smaller brain (as in birds & some animals), very large brains (as in elephants & whales & dolphins) or even a highly developed nervous system without a brain. You have the book with you. The (attribute based) definition of consciousness is also provided therein. TY DL On 11/6/2020 5:42 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote: > > I just saw Deepak’s reply. > > In my comment about physicists, I should have said “Western > physicists” :0)… > > That said, I would need to explore more what is meant by consciousness > without a brain… > > > Best, > Gregg > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba > *Sent:* Friday, November 6, 2020 7:11 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve > > *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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Dear Joan, > > /Indeed within the existing scope of knowledge it has to be decided > whether consciousness is either an entity, property/relationship./ > > /Truly yours > Deepak Loomba/ > > On 11/6/2020 4:48 PM, Joan Walton wrote: > > *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 Gregg > > Thank you for your response. I'm not sure whether our sense-making > can line up or not, but as I think it is important to > cooperatively try to make sense of the crazy world we live in, and > the significance of our individual lives within that world, then > I'll explain a little of where I am coming from. At the end of > this email, I copy a short section from a paper I wrote, which > contextualises some of the points made in the email. > > Firstly, I think the implications of quantum physics for a new > worldview are phenomenal - that is a worldview which > fundamentally challenges the mechanistic, Newtonian one that > dominates and influences an increasingly neoliberal politicised > world. What quantum physics does is challenges the separatist, > determinist, reductive ontological assumptions of classical > science, and instead shows us that we live in an entangled, > inter-relational universe, where the observer does not exist > independently of the world s/he observes. I don't think we can > separate out 'macro-science' and quantum physics, because they are > both emergent from the same underlying reality, but their > underlying assumptions are in fact mutually exclusive (separate v > entangled, certainty v uncertainty, etc). > > In the classical, Newtonian worldview, it is possible to believe > that (inanimate) matter is primary, and that consciousness (life) > is a late emergent property of matter. Am I understanding your > model correctly, where you have 'matter' at the base, and 'life' > as emerging from matter? You do not mention consciousness, but - > and correct me if I am wrong - I am assuming that in your model, > consciousness emerges with 'life' - and perhaps, in line with the > Newtonian view, consciousness is a by-product of the brain? > > Although there are many interpretations of quantum physics, a > central one is that it questions the nature of Consciousness > (written with a capital C to differentiate it from the > individualised form of consciousness we all experience) - with > some physicists suggesting that the only way to explain the > double-slit experiment is if you accept that particles have > Consciousness. In other words, it is possible that Consciousness > is primary, fundamental, universal - which would change > everything. Your timeline starts with the Big Bang - but what > existed before then? Possibly Consciousness - and if > Consciousness is a living dynamic energy, and we are all an > expression of that fundamental Consciousness, then in fact Life > would precede matter? > > In other words, the theory is, that if the universe were destroyed > by a nuclear bomb right now, the physical world might be > destroyed, but Consciousness in its essential form, would not be. > It is in that context that Max Planck's quote makes sense. > > John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, develops this thinking when > he states: "Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say > that the world exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can > no longer be upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a > ‘participatory universe’ ". > > I'm interested in exploring what it means to live in a > 'participatory universe' with an ontological assumption that we, > as living beings, are essentially creative expressions of a > 'participatory consciousness'. Which means that how we experience > each present moment, the choices we make, right here, right now, > influence the reality that is created. There are no inbuilt laws, > no predetermined reality, the future is open to us, and will > reflect the extent to which we are able to 'tune in' and resonate > with the fundamental consciousness which is the source of our > being. And in that sense, the quantum principles of entanglement, > interconnectedness and interrelatedness become central. This > becomes important when we think of problems like climate change, > environmental degradation, terrorism, the many forms of abuse and > oppression that epitomise our world - all stem from perceptions of > separation and alienation, and a lack of connection to each other > and the wider planet. > > Where does this tie in with psychology, which I know is your main > interest? Well, with the kind of ontological foundation that I am > proposing, I see psychology, the different sciences, sociology, > politics, economics, etc etc as all being interrelated, and it is > important to see each discipline in the context of all the rest - > again to follow any one of these without attention to their > relationship to all the others, merely exacerbates the sense of > separation which I think is core to all world problems. > > If this is not really relevant to your interests, please do say! > But it does worry me that there are so many intelligent people on > this planet, many with great ideas about what needs to be done to > make the world a better place (and listening to Trump in the last > 24 hours, we definitely need more intelligent alternatives), and > with theoretical frameworks (such as your own) which aim to > enhance understanding and wisdom. However if we don't make some > attempt to 'join up' these different approaches, and translate > these into some form of cooperative (including political) action, > then our individual voices will be drowned out by the tsunami of > ignorance, selfishness and self-centredness etc, that threatens to > overwhelm us. > > Best wishes > > Joan > > Quantum physics has revealed that reality is much more complex, > and far less easily comprehensible, than had appeared to be the > case when it was believed that the Laws of Newtonian Science were > applicable to all of reality. > > Scientists have recognised the problems that are inherently > challenging in this. Einstein (1879-1955) summed it up as follows: > > We are faced with a new kind of difficulty. We have two > contradictory pictures of reality; separately neither of them > fully explains the phenomena of light, but together they do." > (Einstein & Infeld 1938:262-263). > > ** > > John Wheeler (1911-2008), a theoretical physicist and a colleague > of Einstein’s, reflected on the very different worldview that > emerged from quantum physics: > > Useful as it is under everyday circumstances to say that the world > exists ‘out there’ independent of us, that view can no longer be > upheld. There is a strange sense in which this is a > ‘participatory universe’. (1994: 126) > > Wheeler suggests that, rather than being passive bystanders in the > world, we are instead active participants, who create rather than > discover the universe with which we are interacting. > > In summary, quantum physics reveals that we live in a > non-deterministic universe, where it is not possible to predict > with certainty, but only in terms of probabilities; and where > there is no independent observer, as the act of observing and > measuring reality changes the nature of that reality. The > phenomenon of entanglement identifies that the influence of one > particle on another cannot be explained by cause and effect, but > instead indicates a relational interconnectedness that can only be > understood within the context of the whole in which both particles > are located. > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 16:15, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi Joan, > > Thanks for this note. I appreciate your question/point about > ontology. I am somewhat familiar with Barad’s work, but did > not dive deeply to see how much it aligns with my own. I will > say that think there are many different issues here that need > to be disentangled. For example, I was not sure if you were > talking about scientific knowledge or other > forms/domains/claims pertaining to knowledge. The issues are a > bit different depending on the frame. > > If we are talking about our scientific knowledge of the > universe, the ToK System aligns quite well with Roy Bhaskar’s > work in critical realism. He does good work separating > epistemology from ontology. Note that most of his focus is on > macro science and everyday knowledge. Things are a bit > different if we move into the quantum domain, so I would need > to know which domain you were focused on. > > Here is the basic map of scientific knowledge and reality > afforded by the ToK System. It characterizes Matter, Life, > Mind, and Culture as planes of existence, which represents the > ontic reality. It identifies science as a kind of > justification system that generates ontological claims about > the ontic reality via epistemological methods that justify > those claims. > > Given this map of the ontic reality and scientific > onto-epistemology, I don’t know how to interpret Max Planck’s > quote. > > I would welcome your interpretation to see if our sensemaking > lines up here or not. > > > Best, > Gregg > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> *On Behalf Of *Joan > Walton > *Sent:* Thursday, November 5, 2020 9:48 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: TOK Thanks to Steve > > *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 Gregg > > I was interested in a sentence in the email below: "I am > noting an interesting set of tensions is emerging between > folks in the group who emphasize epistemological positions > that are grounded in: 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) > objective/behavioral v 3) intersubjective/language)". > > I would be interested in the ontological assumptions that you > and others consider inform these epistemological positions? > So often, ontology gets explicitly ignored (whilst implicitly > influencing everything). > > I'm very interested in the idea that separation of any kind > is an illusion, and am exploring the idea of the > 'inseparability of the knower and known'. I don't know if you > are familiar with Karen Barad's /Meeting the Universe Halfway > - quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning/, > and her concept of 'ethico-onto-epistemology' where ethics, > ontology and epistemology are entangled. In exploring these > ideas, my starting point is that everything starts with our > experience (hence phenomenological); and we have no experience > without consciousness - so consciousness is fundamental to all > that we think, say and do. So our beliefs about the nature > of consciousness become integral to all other ontological and > epistemological issues. Max Planck's “I regard consciousness > as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from > consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything > that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, > postulates consciousness.” (1932: /Where is Science Going). / > > But we need to start with our experiences of consciousness, > and share those experiences, with any theories grounded in, > and resonating with, those first person experiences. > > Within this context, my sense is that selecting an > epistemological position from the three you identify is in > itself a form of separation, which we need to try to move beyond? > > I could write a lot more, but I'll leave it there. Sorry, I > do not have the space to read all the emails on this list, > though I read a fair number, and I may be writing about stuff > you've already covered, or is not particularly relevant to > your main points of discussion, but just thought I would give > a quick response to that section which caught my attention. > > Best wishes > > Joan > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 10:52, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Hi Folks, > > Just wanted to say thanks to Steve Q for sharing his story > regarding the problem of value in psychology. It affirmed > for me strongly how fraught the problems of simply > applying the methodological language game of MENS is to > human psychology, as it comes with many different “value > parameters” that can quickly be overlooked and hidden, and > extreme assumptions of “objectivity” become masked and > tangled with the methods. > > My proposal is for a metapsychology that uses the ToK > System instead of empirical methodology as the language > game of MENS. The reason is obviously, > metaphysical/conceptual clarity. For example, it was clear > that the exchange, as all the TOK Community exchanges have > been, along with virtually all other zoom exchanges, take > place on the Culture-Person plane of existence and involve > justification, investment and influence dynamics. In the > broad sense, Steve shared his justification narrative for > his struggles with the justifications that empirical > psychology, especially trait personality psychology, offer. > > Mike M largely concurred. I did also, with a caveat. The > problem is largely resolved, IMO, when we have the right > metaphysical map of human psychology. The “traits” of the > Big Five are, indeed, dispositional tendencies that emerge > over the course of development. There are genetic > differences that track onto behavioral dispositional > differences, although the road is complicated and filled > with feedback loops, such that genes clearly don’t cause > traits. > > I could go on, but the point is that we need a theory of > “traits”, just like we need a theory/frame for talking > about our entire subject matter. And, ala Mike’s > arguments, that does need to be intersubjectively > constructed. (Note, BTW, I am noting an interesting set of > tensions is emerging between folks in the group who > emphasize epistemological positions that are grounded in: > 1) subjective/phenomenological v 2) objective/behavioral v > 3) intersubjective/language). > > The question I pose: What is the proper language game for > human psychology? For me, the metapsychology provided by > UTOK provides the best way forward. For starters, it > shines the light on the Enlightenment Gap > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_theory-2Dknowledge_202010_the-2Denlightenment-2Dgap&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=meyfxoGp13Dr61ajBU9icCoVaWoi7x-1EVnbsJSORMs&e=> > and offers a way to resolve that. I would argue it was in > the shadow of the Enlightenment Gap that Steve found his > “is-ought” problem. And the proper way forward is not via > the empirical methods of science, but first, a language > game that gets the field of inquiry clear. We were headed > in that direction near the end: What are the/needs/ we > have as Primates? How do we /justify/ our selves as Persons? > > 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=0zBF57GgS8JlltmswWOHgjp6MRocrzA8xcyMeKilHRQ&s=iEPgzm6CVAVJm_lbm1L5oEs_pUCqXHH0k-VCsrLH7wQ&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=dER1ofiBC6KRoJzI_uiUbLRE5y_SZfBe5qgyoZNXiHA&s=g0V3gh806uhoNKQyWv1SB_52tEzR45nG9MsiUdzIu2U&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 > <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 > <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 > <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 > <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 > <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 > <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