hello, reappearing out of my hiatus. Hello everyone... Im hella busy but happy this listserv is lively. i like these comments and concepts in development. let's dial back to the beginning of the conversation. Start from the most basic question: what are the units and why are these the only useful units of analysis? Cosmic units. What are cosmic units? what do you mean by cosmic? this is a nondual mashup of physics and metaphysics.... is this unit ITSELF too complex to make sense of?PRove to me you have a "cosmic unit", on the micro level, and we can go from there. Wilber attempted to do this. it was his greatest and worst project: holonic units. He was correct to focus on this unit problem but was a total failure in proving that holons exist or have any compatibility to mainstream physics in empirical testing. Until Wilberian holons are demonstrated to "exist", it is merely a thought experiment. We know that physical units like quarks and bosons and atoms work quite differently than the "twenty tenets" of holons proposed by wilber.... his dont "Work" because nobody has modeled and tested and verified that they work. Biological units. Ok, DNA and whatnot... but also species, ecologies, and so forth. you would think these are solved problems, but we keep finding out that DNA does NOT work like we once thought; that the "codes" of biology are complex and interactive across multiple levels (epigenetics) and multiple processes (mRNA, DNA, chimera cells, hormonal and enzyme mechanisms that transcend the person or even the individual human body...." WHAT IS THE PURPOSE IN TRYING TO SIMPLIFY ALL THAT INTO MORE BASE UNITS, as opposed to going the other way around? The answer is its "convenient to learners", just wrong. What are the answers? Read everything ever published on these topics. Oh wait: nobody has that kinda time.... So... the real truth of this conversation: we are merely theorizing LEARNING MODELS for how to condense the complex reality sufficient to make complex systems accessible to the human deliberative brain, which has a very narrow, small bandwidth and can only manage a small number of variables. What the web 3 hackers are trying to figure out: how to EXPAND that bandwidth, in the most creative ways possible, so we can show people complex systems in a more realistic manner, closer to how they actually work. And the core mechanism for this currently? Synesthetic learning... More later Robert On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 2:56 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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SIc_Uz-Hp-DINMfl-2In8LqdHjp_BtqSxCYROt_5g3g&s=XgEHIMlKprVp7-njyuMPkjRBF1JBoLHBSHPhC1111tY&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=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=SIc_Uz-Hp-DINMfl-2In8LqdHjp_BtqSxCYROt_5g3g&s=VwYDvwMuBqan_GWuXgu8TKStm5DFSsNe7tfd69mPtMc&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] or click the >>> following link: >>> 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] 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 >> > > > -- > 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] 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