Hi, Michael, I am familiar with the H2O metaphor for the emergence of
'mind' or the psychological, but in my view it still is reductionistic --
and / or it doesn't do the work it is supposed to do.  All examples of
emergence we have are of the same kind:  new organizations of matter, with
new emergent behaviors.  But in my understanding, the 'hard problem' is
deemed a hard problem, not because agent-like behaviors can emerge in
complex systems -- that's all still third-person, objective description and
focus; still a behavior-orientation.  The hard problem is a hard problem
because there seems to be no objective explanation of how or why any of
that would lead to first-person, qualitative feeling or experience.  There
is a leap being made, where we assert that 'subjective feeling / experience
is here,' but all we have accounted for is the emergence of new complex
forms of the behavior of material forms.  Not the irruption of 1p
experience into a world utterly devoid of such until then.

Best wishes,

Bruce

On Mon, Sep 6, 2021 at 4:23 PM Michael Mascolo <[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 All:
>
> In a recent post, I expressed agreement with the an article that asserted
> that that “the mind does not exist” – at least to the extent that “mind”
> and “mental” are defined in contrast with “physical” and “material”.  The
> mental/physical dichotomy is a nasty one, as it suggests that “mind” is
> something that is non-corporeal.  Robert Ryan — in a post that I am deeply
> grateful for — suggested that the ideas that I had advanced are
> reductionistic. Robert inspired me to try to be clearer in my thoughts
> about why “mind” and “mental” are unhelpful concepts, and how it is
> possible to be both a materialist and to be non-reductionist.  I believe
> that it is possible to have a non-reductionist materialist conception of
> consciousness and experience.  And I think that this position aligns quite
> closely indeed with Gregg’s system.
>
> I want to assert a concept that I have called *embodied emergence *(Mascolo
> & Kallio, 2019) — the idea that psychological processes and states
> (consciousness, experience) *are* complexly-organized biological
> processes, albeit ones with novel emergent properties. (Please – stay with
> me – there is something new here as I hope will become clear below.)  Novel
> psychological properties – e.g., awareness meaning, experience, qualia –
> are emergent from biological processes in the sense that they are *not
> found* in their base biological elements.  However, these novel and
> emergent psychological processes do not contain (nor do they have to)
> properties that *override* or *conflict with* the properties of their
> base elements.
>
> To make this argument, I want to show that qualitative transformations
> routinely occur in everyday physical systems without creating structures
> that override or conflict with the properties of their base elements.  This
> can be illustrated with the common example of how we get *liquid* – water
> – from the combination of two *gasses* – hydrogen and oxygen.  When we
> combine hydrogen and oxygen – two gasses – we don’t get more gas – we get a
> liquid – something with qualitatively different properties.  How is this
> possible?
>
> This is not a mysterious process. This well-understood process is
> described in the graphic below.  The short story: A water molecule, of
> course, is formed with two molecules of hydrogen combine with one molecule
> of oxygen. When this happens, individual water molecules connect to each
> other through the formation of a * hydrogen bond* between the slightly
> negatively-charged oxygen molecule of one water molecule and the slightly
> positively-charged hydrogen molecule of another This bond, however, is very
> weak. As a result, movement breaks the bond quickly, allowing molecules to
> flow over each other – thus producing liquid.
>
> The novel way of understanding this process is to be found in the concept
> of *EQUIVALENCE *(which, as I understand in mathematics, is different
> from *equality*).  Liquidity is an emergent property of H20 molecules
> aggregated together.   When we combine material gas of H and the material
> gas of O, we get the material liquid of H20.  When we say that liquid
> emerges from a combination of H2 and O, we do not say that the
> combination produces H20 *and then also* the liquid we call water.  H20
> is the EQUIVALENT of the liquid we call water. The properties of water are
> fully explainable by the novel structure that arises from the relations
> between H2 and O.  We don’t need to *add something* in addition to the
> novel structure of H20 to explain its properties.  We simply have a novel
> structure with emergent properties.  The properties that emerge from the
> coordination of base elements are not to be found in those base elements.
> In this way, the novel properties cannot be reduced to their base elements.
>
> I want to say that the *same basic equivalence relation* occurs between
> base biological processes and emergent psychological processes.  We have
> biological structures and processes – cells, neurons, synapses, etc.
> Psychological states and processes emerge from the complex organization of
> biological structures and processes (in ways that we do not understand).
> Now, here is the important philosophical point: When this happens, the
> higher-order *biological organization* has novel psychological properties
> – e.g., awareness, qualia, etc. – that are not found in the base elements
> themselves (e.g., individual cells).
>
> What I want to say is that the relation between (a) base biological
> processes and (b) biological processes with emergent psychological
> properties is akin to the relation between (a’) the base physical elements
> of H and O (b’) and the physical water molecule -- H20 – with the
> emergent property of liquidity. That is:
>
> The liquid we call “water” is the EQUIVALENT of H20.  There is not H20
> and THEN ALSO something else – some emergent liquid we call “water”.
> Liquidity is the emergent property of H20 – a higher-order structture  We
> don’t have H20 plus something else called “water” or “liquid”.
>
> States we call consciousness, awareness or qualia are the EQUIVALENT of
> complexly organized biological processes. There are not the
> complexly-organized biological structures and THEN ALSO some novel “mental”
> or “non-biological” something called “consciousness”.  We don’t have
> biological processes PLUS something else called “mind” or the “mental”.
> Psychological processes ARE complex biological processes with emergent
> properties (awareness).
>
> But wait, you might say: The psychological person is an agent – the person
> has something akin to “free will” – the capacity to control his or her own
> behavior.  Physical systems don’t do this.  How do we get something like
> conscious agency from a physical system?  To explain psychological
> processes in a material system, don’t we have to explain how we are capable
> of conscious control?  Don’t our powers of conscious control mean that
> somehow “minds” emerge that control “physical” or “biological” bodies?
>
> The answer is “no” – we do not have to postulate a “mental” entity to
> control behavior – because the capacity for hierarchical regulation is
> already built into the structure and processes of biological systems.
>
> I believe that we tend to believe that “mind” is something that is
> separate from “body” not not because we can’t imagine how awareness can
> emerge from biological processes, but instead because we cannot imagine how
> human *agency* –  the capacity to consciously control behavior --
>  emerges from a physical or biological system.  We attribute a capacity for
> conscious control (sometimes called “free will”) to “mind”.  How else can
> “we” be in control?
>
> But the point is this: We don’t need complex “mental” processes to explain
> the capacity for agency.  Agency – or at least *hierarchical regulation *is
> a basic property of biological systems. Even single celled organisms are
> self-regulating systems.  The complexity of self-regulation increases as we
> move up phylogenetic levels of complexity.  At some point, the capacity to
> represent one’s environs (and indeed, one’s own processes) comes to
> function as part of the biological self-regulating system itself.  If this
> is true, then we do not need to invoke mysterious conceptions of “I” or
> attribute mysterious properties of agency to consciousness to explain human
> behavior. Consciousness and other psychological processes serve functions
> other than agency in the human system.  Consciousness and other
> psychological processes transform the already existing capacities for
> agency and hierarchical control that already exist in biological systems.
> Consciousness likely serves the function of coordinating or integrating
> information from endogenous and exogenous sources so that the organism can
> respond to increasingly complex systems of adaptive challenges.
>
> And so, the assertion that psychological processes ARE complexly-organized
> biological processes is not a reductionistic statement (although it can be,
> in some formulations).  Glucose metabolism is a biological process but not
> a psychological process (although it can arguably be *influenced* by
> psychological processes). Consciousness is both a biological *and* a
> psychological process; it is a biological process with emergent properties
> that function in the service of the already adaptive self-organizing
> organismic system as a whole.
> All My Best,
>
> *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.*
> Academic Director, Compass Program
> Professor, Department of Psychology
> Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
> 978.837.3503 (office)
> 978.979.8745 (cell)
>
> Bridging Political Divides Website: Creating Common Ground
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=dnaikad71T93VCsHiaWfPRCcRhnRziPJtxl4YvZAMxo&e=>
> Blog: Values Matter
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=ig-BUTBtjh39H7resrXu6Tu-qsaO7_rLhP7-Bl3vMZQ&e=>
> Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=FzppyMwN986Lq13axaveLOYQ2M6IBG96yT0skmPQ_M0&e=>
> Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=gcLC-6dvIK_0kUcEAhcLfpV6J3kqE1aJGeWoOxj74SA&e=>
> Academia Home Page
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=FJ8UplzkVL7xXFlWe_3bGVMwGcFGNSLXltxzbm1PRRE&e=>
> Constructivist Meetup Series
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BiXTct126rn5ZsNOJ2THyGg7QkeTiFNc3sNcxpioSYs&s=3dJgNYXjbaZ5CTnG-CjJJEm3ToN-Cf-23W6W-4IZWXQ&e=>
>
> Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth Burke
> If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well. -- Donald Hebb
>
> ############################
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 4:18 PM, ryanrc111 <[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.
> ------------------------------
> Dr. Mascolo,
>
> That is a reductionist reasoning that i cannot agree with.
>
> When systems are qualitatively different, they deserve qualitative labels
> that are different.
>  "everything is just ____________" never has worked in the history of
> science, and I don't think it will start working now.
> Biological systems are not merely just physical. Social systems are not
> merely just biological.
> They do have different features, different epistemic concerns, and indeed
> differing levels of action.
> The universe is digital -quantum particles do not continuously effect
> large scale systems.
>  There are clear breaks at different scales, where hardly any activity on
> scale 1 affects systems on scale 2.
> the math of differential equations and complexity supports a digital world
> of level-based actions and level-based systems.
>
> You might be interested to read the work of Sandra Mitchell , a top
> philosopher of science, whom I took coursework from at U Pittsburgh. "
> IN fact, Sandra is the department chair of the #1 rated philosophy of
> science dept. in the world, and I learned from her there!
> She has presented full theories about the qualitative difference between
> the "sciences". and they are close to Henriques.
>
> Sandra Mitchell - Wikipedia
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Sandra-5FMitchell&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=a4GpWt5qlsEqQs-EqHtfR3r3f3Htlu2QNX7L0XB9WSA&s=S4VqQYAPqYN8zdUcJWtT-iY3bYuy__DjE1-CRUeealQ&e=>
>
> There is no possibility of reducing social to biological , and so forth.
> Just because there are causal linkages through the material world, does
> not mean these systems are qualitatively identical in character.
> Emergence is very well established, but I do realize there are people who
> hate it as a concept.
>  However, Its far easier to defend the qualitative thesis because it
> doesn't require a magic bullet theory.
> I have yet see a magic bullet theory that accurately reduces one "science"
> to another. They have all failed.
> thus, knowledge still stands as qualitatively different for different
> systems.
>
> Thanks
>
> Robert Conan Ryan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 4:03 PM Michael Mascolo <[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.
>> ------------------------------
>> Greetings All:
>>
>> Thanks for pointing us to this article Gregg.
>>
>> I must admit, I agree deeply with Gough’s thesis in this paper.  I think
>> that terms like “mind” and “mental” should be discarded — except
>> metaphorical terms to use in everyday discourse.
>>
>> Like any term, the meanings of “mind” and “mental” gain their meaning
>> dialectical through a contrast to what they are *not*.   Different
>> meanings of a term can be illuminated by understanding the different ways
>> in which they can be contrasted with what they are not.
>>
>> A central meaning of the terms “mind” and “mental” arise from their
>> contrast with terms like “physical”, “bodily” and “corporeal”.  This
>> contrast identifies “mind” and “mental” in contradistinction to that which
>> is material.  It is this meaning that is problematic.  The moment we
>> suggest that “mind” and “mentality” are in some way “not physical”, we
>> become deeply entrenched in the intractable mind-body problem: How can
>> something non-physical “cause” changes in something “physical”, and so
>> forth.  This problem is intractable.
>>
>> In my view, terms like consciousness, experience, meaning,
>> representation, awareness all refer to psychological processes. The
>> difference is that these terms do not carry any necessary connotations of
>> non-corporality.  This is why, in my view, it is preferable to use these
>> terms rather than “mind” or “mental”.
>>
>> From this point of view, psychological processes ARE physical and
>> material processes — biological processes that function at a higher (yes
>> higher) level or organization.  There is no mind/body problem because what
>> people call mind — consciousness, experience, agency — is not
>> non-physical.  Thus, it makes sense to ask, How does consciousness emerge
>> in a bio-physical system — where consciousness is NOT assumed to be
>> non-physical.  In contrast, the question, How does “the mind” emerge from
>> bio-physical systems suggests that there is something called “mind” that is
>> “nonphysical”.
>>
>> My Best,
>>
>> M.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Michael F. Mascolo, Ph.D.*
>> Academic Director, Compass Program
>> Professor, Department of Psychology
>> Merrimack College, North Andover, MA 01845
>> 978.837.3503 (office)
>> 978.979.8745 (cell)
>>
>> Bridging Political Divides Website: Creating Common Ground
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.creatingcommonground.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=wbQHy-km9ZamhneRh-j419humCnbwn3N8TNk9Sf1W0s&e=>
>> Blog: Values Matter
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.psychologytoday.com_us_blog_values-2Dmatter&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=Rxk4SxQTODZW19gdIp9UwwsXxrwYmXBnNLVOA_MsFlQ&e=>
>> Journal: Pedagogy and the Human Sciences
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__scholarworks.merrimack.edu_phs_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=TZ6zu3gYBpGnc-qth35P0K2ja09V8ek0yZeb7b9RJX4&e=>
>> Author and Coaching Website: www.michaelmascolo.com
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.michaelmascolo.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=RL_7xz7ooeAUoUwKBhSOce0-I_E53OAudK0rqrgCLxQ&e=>
>> Academia Home Page
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__merrimack.academia.edu_MichaelMascolo&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=56YJNHQVrlG5_KhposaD-iRF6ryS8sc2fdU_9plf7lc&e=>
>> Constructivist Meetup Series
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.constructivistmeetup.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=DOR19Cpta4Old-RNx6bEYIXm4AV594j23SqBnPOLr4Y&e=>
>>
>> Things move, persons act. -- Kenneth Burke
>> If it's not worth doing, it's not worth doing well. -- Donald Hebb
>>
>> On Aug 31, 2021, at 1:55 PM, Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>>
>> Although we hardly need more evidence for the Enlightenment Gap’s claim
>> that there is profound confusion regarding the relationship between matter
>> and mind in modern systems of understanding, here is yet another article
>> that makes the point, with the assertion that we should discard the
>> concepts of mental and the mind all together:
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=Vo68_zOBaNQrDJjhliYComTB8eAqDVyDbw6phBB5Nqw&s=EiJjFp0q9ewfFmzAZ64V9agHPpUuN2JQVlOUhUmiQQ0&e= 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__aeon.co_essays_why-2Dtheres-2Dno-2Dsuch-2Dthing-2Das-2Dthe-2Dmind-2Dand-2Dnothing-2Dis-2Dmental&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=Dfn6DlF75Im2bhzy3L3-GEbx5Z5o-fxg-rve0zrNRF0&e=>
>>
>> Since there are several new people on the UTOK list, I will take this
>> opportunity state what many here already know, which is that the central
>> feature of UTOK is that it affords us a new, different and much richer
>> metaphysical vocabulary for the domain of the mental. Indeed, my current
>> book is on how the UTOK solves the problem of psychology by affording us
>> clarity about the ontology of the mental. (summarized here
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__medium.com_unified-2Dtheory-2Dof-2Dknowledge_a-2Dnew-2Dapproach-2Dto-2Dthe-2Dscience-2Dof-2Dpsychology-2D66f2042e8c32&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=RHhx_9mTU72UuJ8sUvEHUjOQsb-X_FZj-E_bUj5mNy4&e=>
>> ).
>>
>> Because I want practice streamlining this, here is the basic summary:
>> First, via the ToK System’s divisions of complexification, it gives us the
>> category capital “M” Mind, which is a tier of complex adaptive behaviors in
>> nature. Specifically, it is the adaptive behaviors exhibited by complex
>> animals with brains that produce a functional effect on the
>> animal-environment relationship. These are the set of mental behaviors.
>>
>> Second, via the Map of Mind, we divide these mental behaviors first into
>> the neurocognitive processes within the nervous system (Mind1a) that can be
>> tracked by things like fMRIs, and the overt activities of animals that can
>> be observed (Mind1b).
>>
>> Mind2 is used to denote the interior epistemological space that is
>> subjective conscious experience that can only be accessed from the inside
>> and cannot be accessed directly from the outside. This divide is called the
>> epistemological gap. No camera or any other device we can consider allows
>> us to directly experience the Mind2 of another. The most interesting
>> possible exception to this I have seen is the Logan Twins who are conjoined
>> at the head, and share some brain domains. Even here, however, they
>> experience the world via their own epistemological portal and the way they
>> describe sharing thoughts is akin to talking.
>>
>> Speaking of talking, this is the domain of Mind3. Talking flows through
>> the interior and exterior without losing its form. It is a shared
>> intersubjective space. Mind3a is when it is private speech, Mind3b is when
>> it is translated across the barrier of the skin in some other medium.
>>
>> Finally, regarding UTOK’s solution to this world knot, it should also be
>> noted that science is anchored into the language game of behavior and the
>> exterior epistemological position. The ToK represents a behavioral systemic
>> map of nature. Our subjective idiographic point of view is different. It is
>> represented by the iQuad Coin.
>>
>> Thus, my reply to the article is to agree that it makes an important
>> point, but it is laughable that (a) we can just stop using the terms and
>> (b) that words like cognitive, psychiatric and psychological are fine even
>> though mind and mental are hopeless. What is needed is a proper descriptive
>> metaphysical system that is in accordance with natural science ontology
>> that affords us clarity about the various domains of the mental and the
>> ways they emerged and interface.
>>
>> This essay is mental in the sense that it is an example of Mind3b
>> behavior that operates at the Cultural Person plane of existence, and
>> functions to network propositions together to legitimize a version of is
>> and ought.
>>
>> 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=Vo68_zOBaNQrDJjhliYComTB8eAqDVyDbw6phBB5Nqw&s=_AaNOnmXQTg4fYbrkTKj2sCtSyiWJ-UxuVgU4WUkEdE&e= 
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.unifiedtheoryofknowledge.org_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=yR78h67WTt--sRzIZIN2948JxfpkaVqtp2CKS4l3p6g&s=y1OHXcYoLS1rcGRNFEhrIOqM1t09lXA69XKC98X5Ms8&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