Hi Deepak, There is surely utility for thinking of things this way. Especially if you are interested in history, the development of language, and all that. But for me this is too high a level, closer to the social level on the TOC tree. It also seems that Gregg, often get’s distracted with complexity and a bunch of other “easy problem” stuff. All I’m interested in is what are the intrinsic colorness properties of stuff, that get’s to the core of the hard problem, without being distracted by all this other easy problem complexity stuff. To do that, all you need to do is think of two different qualia, and perceiving a strawberry of only two colors. Don’t worry about saturation, history, language, or any of that other easy problem complexity stuff that is taking one away from the core hard problem. Once you can identify what it is that has an intrinsic redness quality, and what has an intrinsic greenness quality, in that simplified model of the world, then you can take the same non qualia blind thinking into the real world, and start thinking about all this other “easy” and complex stuff you are modeling. Our brain has a visual knowledge system, into which 3D colored knowledge can be rendered. Each voxel element of this knowledge can be thought of as an intrinsically colored Lego block. There are various ways of rendering these Lego blocks into this knowledge. When you dream of a strawberry, your subconscious is causing or doing the rendering of the phenomenal knowledge of the strawberry. When you look at a strawberry, your perception system is rendering the same knowledge of the strawberry, based on the stereoscopic data coming from the eyes. But imagining, can’t get knowledge rendered into this visual knowledge system. Try as you might you can’t produce a redness quality, purely from imagination, when your eyes are closed. When you imagine or recall redness, from memory, something different, entirely, is bound into your conscious knowledge. There must be something that is this recollection of redness, which can also be bound into conscious knowledge, but it is much less phenomenal than redness, itself. So, when you talk about things like this, I can’t tell if you are talking about actual redness, or imagined red, both of which can be dreamed of. Also, both of these types of knowledge, out of which consciousness can be computationally built have a “cause” or system which renders them into our knowledge. Both of these types of knowledge can be caused to be rendered by our subconscious dreaming system, or by our visual perception system when we are awake. So, to say one is absent of “cause” to me, along with other unrelated higher level terminology, just makes things impossible to clearly model at a lower level required for engineering of phenomenal perception of color, and nothing else. On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 3:09 PM Deepak Loomba <[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. > ------------------------------ > > [image: image.png] > > > Let’s assume the left hand image to be of one’s own mother, the word > mother exists nowhere physically, but is a representation of the human whom > one refers as mother. > > The right hand image is what one saw in a dream. The face of the woman is > not visible, yet one ‘knows’ that the said woman is one’s mother without > any physical resemblance. > > Word ‘mother’ is a representation of a woman in one’s mind, while the > right hand image is an imagination. > > Flashing of word ‘mother’ is an effect of one watching a woman with the > left side image, while concurrently being a representation. But the right > hand image has no umbilical cord connecting it to one’s mother. But is > ‘marked’ mother arbitrarily. In my book Awareness & Consciousness, I have > underlined that the most important attribute of imagination is absence of > cause. It happens not as an effect of an external stimuli, but is a > ‘re-arrangement’ or pop-up of a new infonomy, which is completely free off > any connection to the past and hence is not burdened by causality. > > Thematically, both the world ‘mother’ and the right hand image ‘represent’ > one’s mother, but the vital difference between the two is following: > > First animals invented the thought of image of mother, thereafter the > auditory sound was invented and subsequently the written symbol was > invented. Both thinking and speaking (referring) are capabilities that are > available in other animals too. It was the invention of ‘written’ symbol > that completed changed the homo sapien community. Because written symbol > could be conserved. Thoughts and auditory references, die immediately after > being used. But it was the written notation that generated social memory > (memory outside one’s mind) & generated that most important feature that > distinguished human intellect – objectivity. Because humans learnt to > represent through symbols, outside of their mind, they could share their > information with others, thereby converting a huge chunk of information to > be objective instead of all of it being subjective. This in turn > dramatically expanded human capabilities to forecast, as they started to > factor in besides inferences of personal experiences & observations; those > informed by others. This created the network effect, that changed human > history for all times to come. > > Therefore, written word ‘mother’ became an objective representation, while > the imagined image on right remains a personal subjective, imagined > respresentation. > > Regards > > Truly yours > Deepak Loomba > CEO > De Core Science & Technologies Ltd. > Noida > <[log in to unmask]> > > > On Mon, Apr 5, 2021 at 12:52 AM Brent Allsop <[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. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Hi Deepak, >> >> >> As you know, I think your term Infonomy is brilliant, and we are now >> using that term in RQT documentation. I think of perception more in >> engineering terms. It’s not so much about what you can or can’t model, >> it’s more about what you need to model to get the job done. When you >> engineer a strawberry picking robot, for example, you don’t want to model >> or have knowledge of all if the Infonomy, just the important parts (none of >> the causes, causally upstream from the light reflecting off of the >> strawberry), and the important levels (i.e. not the subatomic level), to >> get the job done. >> >> >> >> I don’t understand the differences you are representing with Perception, >> Representation and Imagination. If you know something, that knowledge must >> be something. So, you can’t have a “perception” or an “imagination” >> without something representing all that, right? >> >> So, help me understand the differences between, Representation, >> Perception, and Imagination. Can you give examples of these? >> >> On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 11:39 AM Deepak Loomba <[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. >>> ------------------------------ >>> Brent, >>> This is how I perceive it: >>> >>> >>> [image: image.png] >>> Regards >>> >>> Truly yours >>> >>> Deepak Loomba >>> Chairman >>> De Core Nanosemiconductors Ltd. >>> >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 4:26 PM Deepak Loomba <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Brent, 'effect' is infact a better word than the one you are meaning, >>>> which is 'representation'. As effect allows for a physical connect between >>>> an event and it's representation inside. Representation without effect >>>> would grant bats the power of imagination of which I am not sure. >>>> >>>> I understand your concept, but understanding what Gregg is advocating >>>> through his ToK theory, both of you are loggerheads foundationally, though >>>> there could be some concurring components. >>>> >>>> Ty >>>> DL >>>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 3, 2021, 7:11 AM Brent Allsop <[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. >>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> Thanks Deepak. It helps me to hear other people describe what I often >>>>> struggle to describe. Just a few comments about the way you are describing >>>>> it. It is problematic to define it as an "effect" that is a reaction to >>>>> specific wavelengths of light. It is critical to realize that you could >>>>> engineer a bat, to represent echolocated bugs with your redness quality. >>>>> If that was the case, not only would that redness not be an 'effect' >>>>> reaction to light (it would be an effect reaction to echolocated sound) but >>>>> you would then know what it is like, at least partially, to be that bat. >>>>> And in that case, saturation would likely not be a factor, as it would just >>>>> be a particular saturation of red that you can experience. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021 at 2:58 PM Deepak Loomba <[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. >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> See inside the trail mail text... Helping you understand Brent's view >>>>>> to best of my knowledge. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 2, 2021, 4:16 PM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Sounds good. Looking forward to exploring this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I saw those a while back when you shared them. I quickly got the >>>>>>> point about the difference between *red* in the world (i.e., >>>>>>> electromagnetic radiation) and *redness* in qualia (subjective >>>>>>> conscious experience). The difference basically parallels the move made by >>>>>>> modern empirical natural science to go to a language grounded in third >>>>>>> person quantitative away from first person qualitative. What I did not get >>>>>>> was the model that was being proposed regarding the mechanism by which >>>>>>> neurobiological activity actually produces *the experienced quality >>>>>>> of redness.* >>>>>>> >>>>>> DL: Since redness is an 'effect' that is a reaction produced to a >>>>>> specific wavelength of light. Let's assume that it is caused by a material >>>>>> X in the nervous system that produces the redness. So the more this >>>>>> material the more is the redness with a point of saturation. Therefore, >>>>>> redness could be interpreted quantitatively as the amount of a chemical X >>>>>> or a physical effect Y or a number of nerves Z in a special area of brain >>>>>> cause the redness. And this redness is quantified reaction in our mind to >>>>>> phenomena happening outside and thus being a kind of projection or >>>>>> simulation in one's mind to actions happening elsewhere and can be >>>>>> identified. >>>>>> >>>>>>> This is the “how and why” combination that makes up the ontological >>>>>>> explanatory gap. There were some interesting suggestions and possibilities >>>>>>> that might frame this, but that is different than having an answer. But >>>>>>> maybe I missed something or maybe it was an example of what an answer might >>>>>>> look like. I do agree there were some cool frames on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Via the Map of Mind1,2,3 the UTOK gives a clear descriptive >>>>>>> metaphysical system. For example, Chalmers differentiates the hard problem >>>>>>> from the easy problems of consciousness. The Map of Mind is a descriptive >>>>>>> metaphysical system that frames this ontologically. That is, Mind1 >>>>>>> represents a neurocognitive (Mind1a) functionalist account of mental >>>>>>> behavior (Mind1b). This corresponds to Chalmers’ talk of the easy problems, >>>>>>> but it is now framed ontologically instead of his epistemological point. >>>>>>> Mind2 is the domain of the hard problem, which is the subjective conscious >>>>>>> experience of being. The account given by the UTOK is functional, >>>>>>> phylogenetic, and ontogenetic and integrative (especially now that it syncs >>>>>>> up with John Vervaeke’s cognitive account via recursive relevance >>>>>>> realization). However, it does not answer the “here-and-now” >>>>>>> neurobiological engineering mechanism problem that is the explanatory gap. >>>>>>> Put in straight forward terms, I don’t think we have any idea how to build >>>>>>> something that has subjective conscious experience. We only know the >>>>>>> functional neurobehavioral correlates. This is a lot, but there is still a >>>>>>> hard problem to be solved. It is also crucial to note that , via JUST, the >>>>>>> UTOK round out the picture by adding Mind3. Mind3a being private narration >>>>>>> and Mind3b being public. This boxes in Mind2, and the UTOK also ties all >>>>>>> the domains together via informational interface. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion < >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Brent Allsop >>>>>>> *Sent:* Thursday, April 1, 2021 3:07 PM >>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask] >>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: TOK: Open Discussion on the Nature of Consciousness >>>>>>> tomorrow at 1:00 pm EST >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *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. >>>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to it! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just FYI, Rather than have me talk about the significant theoretical >>>>>>> consensus we've been able to build and track around Representational >>>>>>> Qualia Theory >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_topic_88-2DTheories-2Dof-2DConsciousness_6-2DRepresentational-2DQualia&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=HDzioO6r1_B_2U7-KCqnY7d2BiOUOtyg78G2H2c0zLU&s=pWgWWhlvnpC0EW4OzwkYXgUSYL3z0pJ8eJnjEgfVqXk&e=> including >>>>>>> tracking any competing theories, during this, it would be way better for >>>>>>> people to just check out our work in progress animated video on this: "Consciousness, >>>>>>> Not a Hard Problem, Just a Color Problem >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__canonizer.com_videos_consciousness_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=HDzioO6r1_B_2U7-KCqnY7d2BiOUOtyg78G2H2c0zLU&s=OOHdseYM73k8DcBnqzWc-9H7CS_EL3NHc888w85ISGs&e=> >>>>>>> ." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We're working on an important additional "Computational Binding" >>>>>>> chapter which isn't completed yet, so I may talk a bit about what is >>>>>>> in that, and how that fits into a definition of consciousness, to get >>>>>>> things started. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looking forward to better understanding how all this fits in with >>>>>>> the TOK and such. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2021 at 6:59 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx < >>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is just a reminder that tomorrow at 1:00 pm EST, Brent Allsop >>>>>>> and I will be having an open dialogue about the hard problem of >>>>>>> consciousness from our various perspectives. I will send a zoom link to the >>>>>>> list serve about 5 minutes prior and anyone who is interested may join us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=ounOzimiw0JyDmIuYAi7nQLgOonuo51hab832pzu9ak&s=2UAp0AF0WdP7xvYTKPRnbw0DA3FQp7qmh8qlX0kabR0&e= >>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=HDzioO6r1_B_2U7-KCqnY7d2BiOUOtyg78G2H2c0zLU&s=F-f60AEs6WxY0qduxxttlvcsLpilABbaHZQrQV847Sw&e=> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ############################ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >> > ############################ > > 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