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://www.enlightenedworldview.com/connection-between-reason-and-psychology/

 

 

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

############################

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