Gregg, Yes, the interviewee Alva Noe. While I do not remember what the interviewer said. My focus was on what the interviewee said, which made very little rationale. Ty DL On 2/1/2021 5:14 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote: > > Which “gentleman” are you talking about, Deepak? The interviewee Alva Noe? > > If so, then we have found a strong point of disagreement with your > metaphysics and the ToK. The entire point of the post was that the > interviewer’s metaphysics were fallacious. > > > Best, > > Gregg > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Deepak Loomba > *Sent:* Sunday, January 31, 2021 2:40 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: TOK on 10 minutes interview > > *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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Gregg, > > Saw the video on your recommendation. Found the gentleman incoherent & > confused. He is elusive of a conflict in his mind that to me is > evident. He wants to believe that there is something beyond the > material/physical but knows it isn't. Belief (a word he constantly > uses for everything he is describing) is an informational plane* which > is de-linked** from material existence. Knowledge is confined on the > contrary to linked informational plane (that which is derived from > material reality). > > As it seems to me, the problem he seems to be stumbling on is the > difference between representation and reality. > > Existence is constrained by our understanding of it. Which means, > everything we do not know***/understand^/perceive^^, for us it really > does not exist. Concomitantly, many wrongly assume the reverse to be > true, that is, everything we know/understand/perceive exists. Latter > is incorrect, because all that exists in the de-linked informational > plane** is actually what can be termed as 'figment of our imagination'. > > A good example of aforementioned would be a photograph & an abstract > painting. Former is a representation, latter imagination. Both exist. > True. But former is representational of reality, latter is a > recombination of pixels. How to physically differentiate the two has > been beautifully described by me in Awareness & Consciousness > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.co.uk_Awareness-2DConsciousness-2DUpanishad-2DDeepak-2DLoomba-2Debook_dp_B07XQ3BMF1&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tyA0CFGZrWF3XKUeB80j0SA9AXgMjyOR_PmaxMCZLnc&s=7aKG6Kx5sAFM_dtAKMM6TmXZBHNKeQ75q2PYOYXe7Bo&e=>. > In case of representation of reality (photograph) the change in the > pixels is gradual, while in delinked informational plane, it is not > bound by gradient. In other words imagine a camera that clicks photos > every femto-second. In case of a photograph there is a limit to how > much two consecutive photographs (say, taken at femtosecond 1 and > femtosecond 2) can differ from each other (it is limited by the speed > of light), there is no such limitation for delinked informational plane. > > *Information is derived from infonomy > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1EWLmmfW1UyYMcgPAqu5Gx-5FjY-5F-2D3O1I1yp6VH3SwBVb4_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=tyA0CFGZrWF3XKUeB80j0SA9AXgMjyOR_PmaxMCZLnc&s=oh5hlinkKqG0xn_nD25H8ze0uAz3y9vNTPTaqsEY7yc&e=>, > which is nothing, but arrangement. > **in the current context delinked means infonomy that is not a > reflection of material reality, but arrived at through a manipulation > (may be, though not sure, 'informational recombination'). > ***Sense > ^Discover patterns/rules > ^^Use memory and bio-computational number-crunching to establish > relationships and dependencies with existing knowledge > > Ty > DL (Deepak Loomba) > > On 2/1/2021 12:08 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for sharing. Part of the ToK-into-UTOK metapsychological > project is getting clear on exactly how we can and should define > psychology and the following five key terms: 1) behavior; 2) > mind; 3) cognition; 4) consciousness and 5) self from a > naturalistic, scientific framework. The argument is that the > framework allows us to frame these concepts with coherence in a > way that has previously eluded us. If you have questions about how > this is accomplished, let me know. We could potentially set up a > zoom dialogos and walk through it and you can see if it makes sense. > > Best, > Gregg > > *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion > <[log in to unmask]> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Peter Lloyd > Jones > *Sent:* Saturday, January 30, 2021 6:05 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > *Subject:* Re: TOK Take 10 minutes and watch this interview > > *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 always, Gregg, thank you for sharing such inspirations. Fun > video and discussion here. I am interested in this from a > philosophical point of view. > > Robert Lawrence Kuhn plays his role well though I doubt he knows > what role it is. I think Alva Noe does a great job but falls short > of making his point, which Kuhn reveals by accusing him of trying > to have it both ways. Noe is not trying to have it both ways. > > For me the confusion here is naming mind, or consciousness as a > thing. It is instead what our brains does,not what it is; it is an > activity and not a thing. I think it is wrong to say we are > conscious beings; we should say that we are are the activity of > consciousness; consciousness is being. Mind seems like a clumsy > means of trying to claim ownership of self by possessing the deed > to our conscious activities. Let’s just drop “it" and be those > activities. > > The natural world is full of events that physics cannot contain or > observe yet that does not make those things metaphysical or in > conflict with the laws of physics. What is time? A thing, an > event, a force, an effect…? We can witness durations, we can > create fictional means of measurement, we can watch the sun move > across our sky, wide can age, but can we witness time itself? Can > anyone here show us what time looks like? Is it odorless? Is it big? > > If we can give up notions of mind, of our consciousness being a > thing, I think we can then have a better grasp on who we are. We > are a lifelong nascent pursuit of ourselves. > > Along with this we need to leave behind any discussion of being > that does not include an environment, as Nicholas has also pointed > out. No conscious event has ever taken place within the vacuum of > a being without an environment. We are always being in situation > and situation never exists without someone being. We are not > simply organisms reacting to environments; we are the environment > we are within. > > Peter > > Peter Lloyd Jones > 562-209-4080 > > Sent by determined causes that no amount of will is able to thwart. > > > > > On Jan 29, 2021, at 9:42 AM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx > <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: > > Dear TOK List, > > Greg Thomas shared with me a WONDERFUL video that gets at > the very heart of the whole ToK System into UTOK philosophy. > > It is from the Closer to Truth Series, Alva Noe is interviewed > about how to connect the concepts of a “person” with the > “physical material universe”: > > _https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_pK2FA7b7qRQ&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=IezeAEdDzDVhC9YKaKrQ0VLPChYKESnZgkHTgnL-mYI&s=F3B3DFmUXAJyywhEeNWqlWxZg-_8MVKOlP0RHsiayIA&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__youtu.be_pK2FA7b7qRQ&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2Wcx1NyCHOg7MnYpPJDspyiVJt4hplwq9ufxeQmyV3k&s=2Zlt-R0B4XU7tZxqAsD6TbGZgPhkXij7GDy34vBpzys&e=>_. > > It is gold. I highly encourage everyone in the TOK Society > should have a look. In 10 minutes, it gets at EXACTLY about > what this whole project getting at analytically. Please take a > look. I will elaborate more, but will give you a hint. The > interviewer embodies the Enlightenment Gap problem. And Alva > points in the right direction, but clearly is lacking the > needed map to justify why he is so obviously correct. But > because of the dominant matter in motion ideology, it is not > blatantly apparent. This is what we must change to realize our > potential as persons! > > Thanks again to Greg for sharing this with me this morning. > Made my day! > > 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=IezeAEdDzDVhC9YKaKrQ0VLPChYKESnZgkHTgnL-mYI&s=nMuK-w42UWdr8MTgvlKWiCEeH1rwckHDBZHxgXRRuwQ&e= > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2Wcx1NyCHOg7MnYpPJDspyiVJt4hplwq9ufxeQmyV3k&s=pjnpksmIc3Yqa_RuQTdlwy2iidbFbCEqwk4QkKIcFzs&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] or click the following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1