Very cool, Brandon, thank you!
With regards to information transfer in culture, there are two kinds:
* Vertically from one generation to the next (Darwinian)
* Horizontally from one person to the next (Lamarckian), which is WAY
faster than the vertical transfer of genes and information, which is
why our brains can no longer keep up with the cultural
transformation (and just a curious fact: my next book is about this) :-)
Best,
Lene
On 25-01-2022 08:10, Brandon Norgaard 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.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I added some content to the enhanced PTB table. At first I just
> copied over what Brendan had offered regarding the metric for the
> evolutionary development at each plane. Gregg said he disagreed with
> Integrated information, Φ for mind, since that exists within all
> planes to some extent, and also MHC within culture, since that is
> another metric that can be applied to a wide range of life forms. I’m
> not sure how to sort this out, but I added an amendment to both of
> those cells to indicate that the mind metric should also take into
> account behavioral investment complexity and the culture metric should
> take into account the complexity of the cultural code. Also I added
> two new rows based on what Daniel Schmachtenberger was talking about
> on several podcast appearances.
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=dFqkZNqBGwcdQdjRk0CMI9Un8BOPpjJ4WIK_G6vHAfA&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=rDCebvfYF7wMiWfFnDrDixheoDOqRGIJhhtAS0caZ3E&s=ckAi1c0Qb-_t8H0YT1kXJelKeJ1jQeyu7wrKFyG3bAA&e=>
>
> Also Nicholas, you bring up some very good points, but I do think that
> this is likely going to have some utility at some point. People could
> have similarly wondered back in the 19^th century what was the utility
> of measuring things like electrical current. It probably wasn’t
> immediately apparent to everyone what these people were up to. I’ll
> admit that I can’t right now think of a practical application of
> having some sort of metric that is applied to the planes of existence
> within TOK/PTB or to the evolutionary process in general, but I figure
> this could prove useful eventually.
>
> Brandon//
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Nicholas Lattanzio
> *Sent:* Friday, January 21, 2022 7:06 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>
> *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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I'd like to expand on Gregg's last point there and see what others
> think. As I strongly agree that we are at that precarious point in
> evolution and human development where that window into direct/indirect
> but intentional influencing of our own evolutionary process can be
> done. I dont think I've seen anyone arguing explicitly against that on
> this listserv.
>
> I also agree by extension with the dire importance of our taking
> action during this time (enact the future from the potential to the
> actual).
>
> Where my metaphysics, Nondual Empiricism, differs from UTOK in this
> area is a small but crucial distinction. That yes we are in this
> position, can, and should do something about it, and can reasonably
> agree what to do based on more or less 'objectively' moral and ethical
> principles that bring us into a oneness with our innate wisdom - which
> could only be accessed as a feedback loop operating from the
> person/culture plane of complexity on the most fundamental orders of
> our and the universes nature through an absolute mess of interactions
> and emergences across and within orders of nature (what I purport
> here, RE the OP, is not worth measuring for the sake of some ephemeral
> window of utility we'd otherwise miss).
>
> As I have mentioned to several of those I have sought advice and
> insight from, I don't believe in free will as such, I have a sense of
> agency, it has intelligence, and it's ontogical root of awareness is
> the same root of all existence (not panpsychism, see Ruper Spira's
> consciousness/model, it's more like panenpsychism).
>
> We see this play out in terms of organization at the culture/person
> plane as justification systems, i.e., it is the organization of our
> justifications (internal working model, schemas, etc) that inform our
> decision-making beyond the biophysical processes that enable such
> higher-order thoguth (Mind3). If you went down a level of complexity,
> BIT represents the nervous systems organization as a manner of
> sensitively avoiding pain and se see king satiety (love at that level
> is survival). Going down to the biological level we see retention,
> selection, and variation as literally evolutionary decison-making. I
> haven't fully worked out this process/relational ontology for the
> lower levels quite yet because the feedback loops become exponential
> (I would argue that is where the room for something like MHC may still
> provide utility).
>
> Zak and others mentioned what I call the Golden thread or cosmic
> golden thread, the ONE epistemic ontically expressed at each order, or
> however you want to say it. So I feel that even though we have this
> agency and at least feeling of decision-making, it is that intelligent
> cosmic golden thread that is enacting through our agency the things we
> call conscious behaviors, and to be experiential in touch with that
> process is nondual knowing, not separating yourself from the natural
> intelligent processes of the universe whose context owns your relative
> existence. It is the same thing as selection, retention, variation.
>
> No one except a deeply misleaded panpsychist would argue that genes
> themselves consciously or intellectually decided to retain themselves
> or vary, or be pruned away, which leaves the case for an evolutionary
> intelligence of sensitivity quite compelling. So I while I think we
> will enact these necessary changes to bring about the next order of
> complexity (which let me remind us all has already happened because
> time is not only linear, this is vertical progression), I don't think
> we are actually choosing what we're doing, with that we being us as
> individual agents of choice. I think it is still that sensitive
> intelligence doing the work, that is the real "us" after all.
>
> But because of the incredible allure and beauty of our conscious
> experience combined with the unique aspect of self-referential
> qualities that mind 3 enables of our phenomenogical experience which
> literally creates the ego as proprioceptive identification ("I am this
> body and its physical limits are mine") and identification with
> content/foreground over context/background, if there is any enactment
> for us to do it is to realize these levels of identification as
> phenomenological structures representing the filters of our lower
> levels of complexity, which we just lump into 1 bit called "I."
>
> The real I is consciousness itself, the rest is misidentification with
> our own natural processes as mere instruments of our humanness, and
> they will never be actualized from purely within the person/culture
> plane.
>
> Measurement is the result of JUST, which is the information organizing
> and sense-making process of evolution at the person/culture plane. To
> enact measurement is to then reduce humanness, it's a negative
> feedback loop. We must transcend measurement if we are to truly enact
> the actualized human, and that process, I argue, cannot itself be
> measured.
>
> Rant over. Thank you for endulging me. Please point out any errors you
> see in my thinking. I think it is metaphysics like mine and many
> others that Gregg would classify as scientific worldview D which UTOK
> needs to align with versus more of the same in other 3rd person
> empricisms.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2022, 5:13 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Great discussions, folks.
>
> I am slammed right now, so I need to be brief.
>
> Brendan, I am a fan of Chaisson’s cosmic evolution in that it
> gives a nice picture of the evolution of complexity from a natural
> science/physics perspective. I have corresponded with him quite a
> bit. He gives a crucial epistemological vantage point for our
> ontology, but not a holistic one. The free energy rate density
> flow principle is a great physical-material metric for complexity
> and, if you know the book cosmic evolution, it aligns very
> closely. Indeed, here is an alignment between a graphic in his
> 2001 book Cosmic Evolution, and something I drew a few years
> earlier (in either 1999 or 2000) as I was playing around with the
> ToK lens on Big History:
>
> Chaisson’s frame is naturalistic-material and although it aligns
> with the complexity sciences, it does not bring in the complex
> adaptive systems thinking necessary for a full bridge. Put another
> way, because it gives a somewhat reductive physicalist causation
> picture of behavior writ large, it fails to effectively frame I
> have recently been calling “epistemic functions.” These are the
> processes that emerge that generate fundamentally new behavioral
> patterns of self-organization. In the vision logic of the Tree of
> Knowledge System, Chaisson’s system fails to “see” why/that Life,
> Mind, and Culture are different dimensions of complexification (or
> planes of existence). He was involved in Big History and that is a
> standard blind spot in that frame. Chaisson also fails to see the
> Animal-Mental dimension as a clearly identifiable plane of
> complexification. Thus, the system is blind to the problem of
> psychology and fails to address the Enlightenment Gap.
>
> Brandon, I like your connections to genetics, integrated
> information theory, and MHC. That said, I would not have aligned
> those exactly in the way you did. The reason is that integrated
> information theory and aspects of MHC will be present in all
> complex adaptive systems. I could elaborate on why, but will punt
> on this issue.
>
> The bottom line is that the free energy rate density principle is
> a great metric for complexity in the Matter dimension.
>
> Then we have bio-epistemic complexification processes as a
> function of genes, cells, and organisms, giving rise to living
> behavior patterns or Life.
>
> Then we have psyche-epistemic complexification processes as a
> function of neuronal nets, animals, and animal groups, giving rise
> to animal-mental behavioral patterns, or Mind
>
> Then we have human social-epistemic complexification processes as
> a function of propositions, persons, and cultures giving rise to
> the human justification-investment-influence patterns, or Culture.
>
> From where I am sitting on the bridge of the UTOK System, we are
> now getting to a place where we can have unique psyche epistemic
> frames to hold the human subjective perspective on the world
> (i.e., the iQuad Coin) and generalized scientific behavioral
> frames that provide a third person onto-epistemological grounding
> (ToK System). We can bridge the Enlightenment epistemic Gap
> between psyche and physics and achieve a much more unified
> approach to knowledge that can then orient toward wisdom in the
> back half of the 21^st century. That is, with the right frame, we
> can consciously evolve in ways that were not available to us
> historically.
>
> Last, on Mon 1/31, I will be releasing a UTOKing with Mike
> Mascolo, where he offers is rich view of psychology, human
> experience and meaning making, and vision for how we might correct
> the structure of the academy and move toward a healthier co-active
> co-construction of reality toward the good. His fundamental frame
> is that relationships are key and they are key all the way down
> and all the way up.
>
>
> Best,
> Gregg
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *T.R. Pickerill
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 11:25 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>
> *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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> mmm, measurement and proof, I relate this to someone who can only
> read sheet music vs a Free Jazz improvisation; when you stop
> counting you listen to and for relationships, and play, fall, and
> create.
>
> "All you have are your relationships." Tim Pickerill
>
> Timothy Rollin Pickerill
>
> Business - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=In0GBV4mCixsBZNffsnGHMB5lY_pAEv5tUOPmabJFZg&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.AudioVideoArts.com&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=WsAAJ-w-anFnLRIPkI-CrooYxKbftZ12CPL-X-fIp1I&e=>/
>
> Photography - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=8713dOylWIQ_DGlqOKYmu4GktTmhfmvyPHWLxjz5Zdk&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__instagram.com_pickerillphotography_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=E5gaKBkyi1hHAc8LlYTCnDBtdjuUt_6IiDRKFC2MLD0&e=>
>
> Art - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=0t_o-x6eZgeju5aboX9drQ2GbBzAri84dDZDKUzUOMM&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.TR-2DPickerill.com_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=kRiaLpq80LWtj6-JpdLgIG-9_JsgiwoXbng_89KDB7o&s=7dt55OEDu-EMNqhkZhNCYnNJJM4FmI99K2asaIdlQqo&e=>
>
> 646-299-4173 (cell)
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 11:12 PM michael kazanjian
> <[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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Nicholas:
>
> I hope you take this as a compliment or similar remark, not
> criticism. Your notion that the people are too interested in
> measurement, sounds like Feynman, who criticized math people
> as too concerned with "proof."
>
> Interesting insight.
>
> Michael M. Kazanjian
>
> On Thursday, January 20, 2022, 10:03:12 PM CST, Nicholas
> Lattanzio <[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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Yall are too concerned with measuring things IMO. I get it I
> do from an inquisitive naturalistic perspective, I just don't
> see what the utility actually is (I mean that very literally,
> not pejoratively or flippantly).
>
> For example, by definition of MHC (thanks for making it clear
> what we were even talking about here, took me a few times
> through the thread to notice the links Zak shared), a higher
> level of order can only be defined in terms of the next lowest
> order. With increasing evolutionary sensitivity these orders
> are only going to become more varied, stratified, and
> virtually useless independent of each other. They only have
> use in context of each other, so in that sense I totally see
> the enactment aspect of this regarding our unique positioning
> in the evolutionary scale of things (things that have come
> before us). It very much falls in line with UTOK and probably
> the metaphysics of most everyone on this listserv, but it
> doesn't serve a purpose as a measurement. That thing, that
> onto-epistemogical golden cosmic thread is not adequately
> reduced to binary (or bimodal) actualizations. If we are to
> learn anything from this age of measurement it's that we need
> a better way to be in touch with potential, the unactualized.
> Enactment does that as the operating ontological process that
> transcends the being-becoming dialectic.
>
> Now if we are looking at efficiency, sure, let's figure out
> how many bits we need to acheive this or that and strive to
> encourage that, though that has never not been the case for
> evolution or reality. We can certainly say that anything could
> have been done more simply or less simply, but if it's done
> then it was done exactly the way it needed to be done and that
> is exactly the information we use to judge the necessary bits
> in the first place. An electron is an electron is an electron,
> let's call it one bit. Now it's entangled and in
> superposition, how many bits is that? Well it would depend on
> what order of complexity you're talking about, and of course
> the meaning or implications differ across and within orders,
> MHC appears to contend that as well, what are we going to do
> with that information? The we that could do something with
> that information IS that information as an expression itself
> of the cosmic golden thread or whatever you want to call it.
>
> I mean I guess this is what people do so maybe that's the
> whole point, but we can't answer Lee's questions about free
> energy with it since we would need to use the terms of the
> order of nature/complexity just below free energy. Any attempt
> to do that is abstraction at the level of mind and further at
> culture. Which is the mosquito and which is the iron bull?
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 9:05 PM lee simplyquality.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__simplyquality.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=c-FOqQjjXV0Q_DM0rvb23rf2afV92WcqQIfecZF3b1I&s=QZ7sxChQwiWJjj1Yazke_iTKmRQxo8WQgBbOTndCUPI&e=>
> <[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 for all this.
>
> My understanding is that:
>
> At 32,000 genes, the carrot genome is a good deal
> longer than that of humans (somewhere between 20,000
> and 25,000 genes).
>
> Therefore I am curious about the Life complexity metric of
> genomic complexity, C.
>
> Is the complexity different from the number of genes in
> the genome?
>
> If so, how is it measured?
>
> Also, I think of entropy
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Entropy&d=DwMGaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SS4gTnrBxuAodN_nyCCz7E2sRQbF8iI9-mg5W9dhKaw&s=5rHzMMo1Z5f9gPabLuE6C0Uektqi5dFogSpzvHLUUtg&e=> as
> the typically used measure of “disorder”
> (often interpreted as complexity).
>
> How does entropy compare to free energy as a measure of
> complexity?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Lee Beaumont
>
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 7:41 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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thanks Brendan. A few months ago, I gave a
> presentation at one of your book club events of a
> table I put together starting from Gregg’s Periodic
> Table of Behavior (PTB) and added content from his
> discussion with Jordan Hall and also from some other
> sources such as the Conscious Evolution podcast. I
> just added the content from your first message and I
> now have the table publicly available for everyone to
> view and add comments:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=dFqkZNqBGwcdQdjRk0CMI9Un8BOPpjJ4WIK_G6vHAfA&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spreadsheets_d_1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-2DTOrO_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing-26ouid-3D117491835000953037563-26rtpof-3Dtrue-26sd-3Dtrue&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=-forJDYnYeVU85bHhkk-3r02ASBpSuwROcJ0o2Zxxko&s=n5iYDOFT77sWXeSzXluvxffU58e3h9i_ZLxgujX3Tbw&e=>
>
> I figure something like this could be published
> officially somewhere, after it’s cleaned up as
> necessary, giving credit to the parties who created
> the content. All I did was put it together into a
> single table.
>
> Regarding the metric of socio-cultural evolution, I’m
> not sure if MHC is the right one, or at least it seems
> that is only part of the picture. I remember the
> Chomsky Hierarchy also gives a nested hierarchy of
> symbolic meaning in languages. Some animals can
> communicate only at the regular expression level, some
> at the context-free grammar level, and we humans have
> recursively enumerable communicative capability. Also
> within this we have many levels of complexity of
> cultural codes, which has some relation to MHC, but
> there is more to it. A person can be at a moderate
> level of MHC with regard to their mental capability
> while also operating within a highly complex cultural
> code. Centuries ago, some people had high MHC while
> operating within a simpler cultural code than we have
> now. I have to figure that it is the complexity of
> the cultural code that is the real metric here. Any
> given cultural code would seem to have some level of
> MHC baked into it, but I’m thinking that there should
> be some metric that would be an enhancement of the
> Chomsky Hierarchy that would measure the complexity of
> the cultural code itself. Essentially, this would
> measure the complexity of language games within a
> given culture and symbol set (spoken, written, facial
> expressions, gestures, etc.) The Chomsky Hierarchy
> only has recursively enumerable as the top level, but
> I have to figure there are many subdivisions within
> that. Does anyone know who has done work on this?
>
> Brandon
>
> *From:* theory of knowledge society discussion
> <[log in to unmask]> *On Behalf Of *Bruce
> Alderman
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 20, 2022 12:27 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: ToK Complexity Metrics?
>
> *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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> The same year Wilber published SES, Henryk Skolimowski
> published a book arguing that we are at a time between
> worldviews -- represented as a 'dip' and 'chaotic
> tangle' between plateaus of dominant
> worldviews/paradigms -- and proposed the next emergent
> view will be holistic, participatory, and evolutionary
> (whatever we name it; some of his prior worldview
> names are 'Theos' and 'Mechanos'). One of his
> arguments in the book is that evolution reveals a long
> trajectory of gradually increasing sensitivity -- of
> evolving modes, degrees, etc, of prehension,
> awareness, and 'participation' that entities use to
> interface with the rest of reality. And a key idea,
> somewhat anticipating Wilber's "W-5" turn, is that we
> need to view this evolution of sensitivity in enactive
> terms, that evolution demonstrates a wandering but not
> directionless unfolding of greater, more complex ways
> that entities participatorily 'enact' their worlds.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 12:05 PM Nicholas Lattanzio
> <[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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I think Major Histocompatability Complex, which
> from my understanding are proteins that help the
> immune system adapt. I believe they measure it in
> making vaccines, and use a great deal of
> statistical information to generate probabilistic
> outcomes. But that's all self-education from
> articles I read like 2 years ago. I could be
> totally wrong amd/or they could be talking about
> something else.
>
> Regards,
>
> Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022, 1:56 PM Zachary Stein
> <[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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Jim Rutt Show: On Hierarchical Complexity:
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jimruttshow.com_zak-2Dstein-2D4_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=IZLaOU-PXQS3ePwNSOGiJ05Ldpf-eJIrJmOnGIa8BDA&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.jimruttshow.com_zak-2Dstein-2D4_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=So2Gj7XP4B3GguSgm4qBYOvUcuunJSnScYrLptGDVRA&e=>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XZN1c3f4U8LI0PhqIfPysB-C_O7S2UD2rkc20j6Q690&s=KGg9zvPPpU5Uq9eXenbz-cuqOiVsEDlH-_whI7pVUZs&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_Model-5Fof-5Fhierarchical-5Fcomplexity&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=e6QCTgwuwT3HO9mehFDk5SQQ_cciahi9xJWQYVvMEP0&e=>
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 2:27 PM Waldemar
> Schmidt <[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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Someone, please clarify (for me) what MHC
> means.
>
> On Jan 20, 2022, at 9:42 AM, Zachary
> Stein <[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.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You're on you something Brendan,
>
> Many thinkers
>
> have been on the same scent.
>
> Aside from e.g., Wilber's
>
> use of Laszlo et al
>
> in *Sex, Ecology Spirtuality;*
>
> See also, for example,
>
> less well known works
>
> like Elliot Jaques'
>
> *The Life and Behavior
>
> of Living Organisms.*
>
> Everyone has been asking:
>
> Can the whole of evolution
>
> be placed along
>
> a single objective axis
>
> of directionality?
>
> Multiple, level-specific "measures,"
>
> yes, ok, *and*
>
> there are deep structural isomorphisms
>
> across/between levels.
>
> Piaget & Co.
>
> can be read as suggesting
>
> that what we call MHC
>
> (Fischer's Skill Levels)
>
> are a local manifestation
>
> of a cosmic evolutionary process
>
> occuring at all levels:
>
> matter, life, and mind.
>
> Quite a claim.
>
> Problematic,
>
> but also illuminating
>
> and insightful.
>
> It is to say,
>
> aside from space, time, etc
>
> there is another universally measurable
>
> dimension involving (forgive the jargon)
>
> *non-abirtary iterations
>
> of complex emergence
>
> and hierarchical integration*
>
> "The many become one,
>
> and are increased by one."
>
> As Whitehead would say.
>
> This is the many stepped
>
> "stairway" of evolution
>
> giving a sense
>
> that things are "going somewhere"
>
> rather than just meandering and
>
> arbitrarily enduring through time.
>
> But, of course,
>
> even if we accept all that
>
> what does it buy us?
>
> Does it buy us what we want?
>
> I think it buys a great deal,
>
> some of it we want
>
> (some of it we don't know what to do
> with);
>
> But this second step
>
> of "who cares/so what?"
>
> is not trivial.
>
> zak
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 10:45 AM
> Brendan Graham Dempsey
> <[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,
>
> Have been considering the ToK
> through the complexification lens
> and wondering what the specific
> quantitative metrics might be in
> each domain of complexification.
> Each new information system would
> complexify along its own
> trajectory, meaning the specific
> metric used to measure it would be
> different than the one before.
> Moreover, each metric would be
> dependent upon and relate to the
> ones on which it rests. Here's
> what I was playing with:
>
>
> *MATTER*: Cosmic evolution –
> energy (metric: free energy rate
> density, Øm)
> *LIFE*: Biological evolution –
> genetic information (metric:
> “physical [genomic] complexity”, C)
> *MIND*: Consciousness evolution –
> nervous system integration
> (metric: integrated information, Ø)
> *CULTURE*: Cultural evolution –
> linguistic justification systems
> (metric: hierarchical task
> complexity, MHC)
>
> At the level of *matter*, I think
> the work of Eric Chaisson on
> cosmic evolution is helpful, and
> he uses the free energy rate
> density (Øm) as his metric.
>
> At the level of *life*, some
> preliminary searches yielded
> genomic complexity (C) as a
> potential metric, as according to
> the work of Adami, Ofria, and
> Collier (2003), but I suspect
> there is better/more recent work
> on measuring biological complexity.
>
> At the level of *mind*, I was
> wondering whether IIT would be the
> best fit, which uses the metric of
> Ø of increasing sentience.
>
> Finally, at the level of
> *culture*, I'm intrigued by the
> potential for the Model of
> Hierarchical Complexity to measure
> justification systems and other
> cultural phenomena.
>
> Again, each new metric would map
> onto the other, such that Øm would
> increase as C increased as Ø
> increased as MHC increased. That's
> a hypothesis, anyway.
>
> Perhaps I'm re-inventing the wheel
> here, so let me know if there's
> already work that's done this. But
> I wanted to hear people's
> perspectives on the prospect of
> identifying different complexity
> metrics for each unique level of
> the stack.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brendan
>
> ############################
>
> 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>
>
>
> --
>
> Zachary Stein, Ed.D.
>
> www.zakstein.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zakstein.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=YdRLNMaydS8BjgIdh3dHs8piU-A007PURV8gr6ghKCg&s=-RgOZ82hnT70JsA8h7l5kS4HpqFxbNXeDHQcBLt2VNc&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>
>
>
> --
>
> Zachary Stein, Ed.D.
>
> www.zakstein.org
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.zakstein.org&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=BSIrUggjECTX-3WpD1Z3Vjp1ZiEmIyCXt4lCrxXC4UI&s=hrMDanBRLvtThATSswHjSE9xtL_v4JVvLwLNuvNfXD0&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]
> <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]
> <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>
>
--
*Lene Rachel Andersen*
Futurist, economist, author & keynote speaker
President of Nordic Bildung and co-founder of the European Bildung Network
Full member of the Club of Rome
*Nordic Bildung*
Vermlandsgade 51, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
www.nordicbildung.org
+45 28 96 42 40
############################
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