I guess it would help to post a link to the article! 🤪 https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.scientificamerican.com_article_quantum-2Dmechanics-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dbody-2Dproblem-2Dand-2Dnegative-2Dtheology_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=XkHsikQgKo6w5iLOdQ8O5WSaBCeM-Z1K8coQneHYbIw&e= On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 at 09:53, Cory David Barker <[log in to unmask]> 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. > ------------------------------ > Busy night, so I wanted to squeeze this in, so there might be spelling > errors. > > This is the same conclusion that I came to when devising the architectonic > of simulation. Knowledge architectures and intelligence processes are > actually variations of and a subset within a larger context of > architectures and processes of the universe. > > I will give a simple example. One of the universal classes of intelligence > is what I call "transduction." There is an input, throughput, and an > output. In development models of human behaviour (and animal behavior in > general), it is expressed as sensory motor activity. An entity is > perturbed, and then that perturbation is interpreted through the > throughput, and then there is an output of action. This universal process > is exhibited in a wide array of different magnitudes of complexity > depending on whether we are talking about single celled organisms or multi > celled organisms as complex as people. But the universal process is always > there. And if you think about it comment it's actually required for any > entity to have a separation between itself in the external environment and > act according to things that happened to it. You can see how this is > associated with neural networks, since the entire technological advancement > is fundamentally based on transduction networks. > > In regards to logical operators, Michael Commons demonstrated how those > operators are transitional steps within the development of one order of > complexity into an increasing order of complexity, and Sarah Nora Ross > demonstrated that they are fractal, they existed every increase of > behavioural complexity. In my master's thesis, I showed how they are not > just universal to humans, animals and machines, but also physical matter > itself. > > The way it goes, is that there is some sort of satisfiability, and then > something new gets introduced into a system. And then the overall system > either rejects or accepts it. That's the complementation "is" or negation > "is not". Then, there is an oscillation between the different ideas, > behaviours, or actions "or", and if the entity is able, it then attempts to > synthesise a coordination between the 2 or more differences "and", and if > it's successful it coordinates a higher order of complexity, "with". At > this point, there is satisfiability again, and the whole process repeats > but within the context of the new complexity form. There is more to it but > this is the general basis of how it works. > > In my model, there are 9 universal process forms, which go as follows: > automation, transduction, concretion, abstraction, principiation, > paradigmarization, panoptic, phasic, deitic. My hypothesis has been that > if we ever meet any sentient alien species, these universal classes of > processes will be exhibited in their intelligence. And that these universal > classes take expression in intelligence, but they exist in a larger context > as the actual processes of the universe itself. The only reason we can > interface with the universe at all, is because we have the same universal > forms in our intelligence as the universe actually uses to function. > > Cory > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020, 11:16 PM Brandon Norgaard < > [log in to unmask]> 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. >> ------------------------------ >> >> As Jamie wrote: “I don't think every number between 1.0 and 1.1 is >> listed in some neural database, so where is the knowledge, and the ideal >> ends that guide all human behavior” >> >> >> >> This is an interesting topic to think about. Logic ultimately underlies >> any mathematical system. There is probably some sort of logical >> description of the numbers between 1.0 and 1.1. Cantor gave a definition >> of the infinite, and not everyone agrees with his line of reasoning. At >> least, we can say that there would have to be a logical algorithm through >> which more fractional numbers could be uncovered (1.01, 1.02… and then >> 1.001, 1.002… in the next iteration). There is the question of infinite >> series and how they are logically defined, but that’s not what I mean to >> highlight here. The question that most interests me is the connection >> between logic and psychology. Logic should be universal and valid for >> everyone and not dependent upon anyone’s genes nor their developmental >> history. I think Husserl came up with the only reasonable solution, which >> is probably an updated version of Platonism: we are basically tapping into >> aspects of reality when we think. Pure logic is an aspect of reality. >> There is no logic for me vs. for you. There is no logic for my culture vs. >> yours. Some people have cognitive defects which prevent them from thinking >> logically. Their point of view is not equally valid. >> >> >> >> I wrote a blog post on this a few weeks ago: >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.enlightenedworldview.com_connection-2Dbetween-2Dreason-2Dand-2Dpsychology_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=kLbjZrO5_rygf-am8fSmvTyuugMVrBB1UU8obzpvdWc&e= >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.enlightenedworldview.com_connection-2Dbetween-2Dreason-2Dand-2Dpsychology_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=gxjH4JaYe9yDjOHU0DH-ipRyqcRGnMHufluaAfiRmgE&s=6snO-1bKAfWbg1kMiEaRwwAwrd2zh6ClFoRr6M2W4sM&e=> >> >> >> >> >> >> Brandon Norgaard >> >> *Founder, The Enlightened Worldview Project* >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D >> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2020 2:39 PM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Re: TOK RE: Which level is the source of human behavior? >> >> >> >> *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. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Thanks Gregg, >> >> >> >> I love that you are working on getting the scientific language game >> right, if only for the sake of the wider culture seeing eye to eye. >> >> >> >> As for this mythos or ground of being, I only meant that platonic realm >> where math and ideas come, which I'm sure is also where our ends and >> intentions are rooted, rather than level 3 nervous systems. (I don't think >> every number between 1.0 and 1.1 is listed in some neural database, so >> where is the knowledge, and the ideal ends that guide all human behavior, >> but from that which can't be spoken in the dualistic language of egoic >> intent?) >> >> >> >> I'm concerned that the ToK is so vast, yet never vast enough to integrate >> all that it could to one, and the evolutionary journey to "getting the >> language game right" will involve the entire global evolution of culture, >> memes, data visualization, etc, ..and I'd guess that your work will soon >> click into place with others, as numerous other language games begin to >> fall apart as they fall together into one. >> >> >> >> Jamie >> >> PS you replied: >> >> >> >> "Mind/mental behavior is not reducible to Life/Brain any more than the >> meaning of this sentence is reducible the adding up the letters." >> >> >> >> Exactly...and the whole sentence has an "end" in mind, which can be >> represented as an idea in some mathematical space we can also come to >> represent as an idea if we wanted to deep dive into whatever we're talking >> about. >> >> >> >> I suppose what I mean by the cosmic self, or ground of being is simply >> "that from which math comes from...as well as these simple ends, beliefs >> and intentions"... The realm of ideas, all possibilities, which, being >> utterly private, cannot as a whole be represented symbolically (at least >> not against the seeking of falsification) as the referent is everywhere. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020, 4:26 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >> Hi Jamie, >> >> >> >> According the ToK System, the ground of being that tie everything >> together are the “glue fields” of “Energy” and “Information”. >> >> >> >> I am unclear what might be meant by “exponentially inert or >> irrelevant”. For me to write this email, all the all the dimensions of >> existence (Culture/Person; Mind/Animal; Life/Organism; Matter/Object) need >> to be aligned via integrated information or complexification in just the >> right way to afford the conditions of possibility that allow us to engage >> in the Culture-Person dimension of justification (which is how we interface >> on this email). >> >> >> >> Take Mind (neurocognition/phenomenology) relative to Brain >> (neurophysiology). Mind/mental behavior is not reducible to Life/Brain any >> more than the meaning of this sentence is reducible the adding up the >> letters. However, the letters are required for it. Destroy the letters and >> the sentence disappears. Likewise, a bullet through the brain results in >> the complexity bubble of integrated information that is organized at the >> mental dimension superimposed upon it to pop. So, surely the brain is not >> inert or irrelevant—it is just not the whole thing. >> >> >> >> Re the cosmic self or cosmic consciousness, I am agnostic about the >> ultimate nature of the ground of being or its ultimate direction. I see >> those as “pure metaphysical questions” rather than “metaphysical empirical” >> questions, and thus properly placed in the domain of “mythos” rather than >> natural science/philosophy. My naturalistic scientific side says that the >> boundary condition of the Big Bang Energy Singularity is, well, the >> boundary of the natural universe. Of course, as some speculation by Penrose >> and others discussed on this list, perhaps there will be natural science >> evidence for things that came before the Big Bang. >> >> >> >> However, the language game of mythos is different and we can imagine a >> “cosmic consciousness” as being the ground of being. Indeed, many spiritual >> traditions point that direction. Thus, there is evidence for it and one can >> find nourishment from that notion if one is mythically inclined. Its just >> that it metaphysically becomes a very fuzzy concept. I embrace *the >> concept of* God, as the ultimate eudiamonic endpoint, which for me is >> symbolized by the Elephant Sun God. Of course, the natural science language >> game has no problem with the concept of God. The substance of God or the >> cosmic awakening/consciousness, well, again, that is a different language >> game, all in the realm of mythos. >> >> >> >> The key, from my vantage point, is to not make a category or language >> game error. That is, the ToK System is first and foremost about getting the >> language game of natural science correct *on its own terms*. Indeed, >> that is where its power lies, which is why I have been so disappointed that >> people who profess to be interested in science have for so long ignored or >> dismissed what the ToK System says. >> >> >> >> Hope this makes sense. Let me know if it does or does not jive with your >> frame of understanding. >> >> >> >> Warm regards, >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Jamie D >> *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2020 6:30 AM >> *To:* [log in to unmask] >> *Subject:* Which level is the source of human behavior? >> >> >> >> *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. >> ------------------------------ >> >> In Gregg's model, it would seem to be implied that all human behavior is >> rooted in the emergent level of mind, or animal behavior, that emerged with >> nervous systems, which would suggest every level (of life and physics) >> below as exponentially inert or irrelevant. >> >> >> >> Yet, I'm increasingly suspicious that our behavior, inside and out, is >> rooted in the very ground of being (energy) somehow more expressed through >> our nervous system, which is especially integrated yet complex enough to >> express the cosmic "self". >> >> >> >> In other words, any search for the root of human behavour or self will >> never end. >> >> >> >> Jamie >> >> PS: some extra quotes if interested: >> >> >> >> "Their is no protection to be found in the seeking of fault, neither >> within, nor without. To seek fault is to ask for it." >> >> >> >> "Fear that others might think you are guilty when you know you aren't >> seems to attract a guilty verdict even though you're not guilty". >> >> >> >> "Identification with fault or loss is the same thing as the Christian >> concept of sin (missing your mark) and the true cause of physical illness >> and death...no kidding." >> >> Fear is identification with loss >> >> Worry is identification with loss >> >> Humor is realized liberation from loss, and often at the expense of those >> who still identify with some loss (superiority + relief theories of humor) >> >> Forgiveness of debtors is dis-identification with the loss of not, or not >> potentially, getting paid back. >> >> >> >> The buddha self can't be named just as God Is nameless, which is why no >> karma attaches to God - the true self of origin. >> >> >> >> Whatever we identify with in our minds, karma attaches to, based on >> simple logic. >> >> >> >> "whoever identifies with loss, loss enjoys to ruin" >> >> >> >> "Behavior according to external morality is service to fear more than >> love, thus distrust of one's own self. True morality is merely the way of >> one's own heart, and trusting one's own self to be faultless, blameless and >> perfect, knowing no good-enough reason to assert otherwise. " >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ############################ >> >> 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 >> <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 > -- Wishing you WELLth Gien Future Ancestor Pull a thread here and you’ll find it’s attached to the rest of the world. - Nadeem Aslam www.stopresetgo.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_tps&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=zVYqZRPtt69iizCgxa1MS88fbzxqS4dHAn4_ONrbEZs&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tippingpointfestival.org&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=3aJHZOz2F3o3Bx6_4P02kUa3mwP5HLcWo5A130tDflo&e= https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.earthwisecentre.org_music-2Dfor-2Dchange&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=VArW2SXmMjJKN1PvuwZCY5NsNbf9aHMwKbt5e134MsA&s=eYp-R_acBRPkxZ0Yl6nPxIXEv-z-iWFbIhVVRdU8cRQ&e= www.futureliving.institute [log in to unmask] intl ph: (1) 206 973-3924 SA ph: (+27) 79 589 6173 skype: geniepop ############################ 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