I'm talking about measuring task performance.

On Sat, Jan 29, 2022, 11:44 PM Lene Rachel Andersen <[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 are jumping from psychology to knowledge now, right?

On 30-01-2022 06:21, Cory David Barker 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.

Pedagogues, teachers and andragogues are beyond what? Measuring?

If you mean that there needs to be education reform, I’m with you. But we will always need measurements in education. Do you really want airplane pilots flying you, drivers on the road near you, and doctors prescribing or operating on you whom haven’t passed their exams that prove their knowledge and abilities?

C.

On Jan 29, 2022, at 10:40 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen <[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.

So, you operate from an order of complexity where measuring is meaningful to you; generally, pedagogues, teachers, and andragogues are beyond that.

Warmly,

Lene

On 29-01-2022 21:14, Cory David Barker 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.

Ah okay. Yeah, there are different reasons why people make measurement tools, and different reasons for why people measure others. Like any tool, it can be used for good or bad.

It often comes down to making a distinction between hierarchy of power vs hierarchy of complexity, which are two different things. But if someone can coordinate with a higher order of complexity than someone else, then it is the natural result that there is power involved. No way around it. Thing is though, higher order of complexity of ethics general dissolve exploitation around paradigmatic stage, though I’m pretty sure you know this already, having written a post with Gregg about Kohlberg. Tolbert showed that people who coordinate cognitive and ethics paradigmatically don’t abuse their coordinative power (alchemist and ironist stages). The issue is high cognitive and low ethics, that’s when there are problems.

I worked as a k-12 tutor for a couple years, tutoring across learning domains. I think people should use what models they find useful in teaching. If kids are happy and learning, what difference does it make. I used MHC all the time, and it worked as advertised. But I am not a hard empiricist, I prefer methodological pluralism. I’ve read some of Bloom’s work in years past. I thought it was okay. I did a full correspondence between it and my own model at one point.

C.

On Jan 29, 2022, at 1:41 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen <[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 Cory,

There is already a profession that works in this area and knows how to deal with this; rarely anybody pays attention to them: pedagogues, teachers, and andragogues.

They don't measure people (unless politicians and economists insist on it); they interact with people around the shared third and they have different professional educations for pedagogues working with toddlers, teachers educating children, and teachers and andragogues educating and working with adults.

There are plenty of non-measuring ways of estimating how each individual is operating and what kind of education is meaningful to them. The most famous and widely used is probably Bloom's Taxonomy: https://www.bloomstaxonomy.net/

/ Lene

On 29-01-2022 20:21, Cory David Barker 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.

@ Lene

So you don’t want general definition of the purpose of measurement, you want my personal take?

For me, the purpose is for fostering the natural evolutionary processes of individuals and societies. The purpose of the creation of MHC was to get clear about the natural sequential order of increasing behavioral complexity, what the characteristics of behavior are at those orders, and how transitions from one order to another actually works. The purpose of measuring behavior with MHC is to get clear about where individuals and societies are at in their complexity development, to get really precise where some orders of complexity and their corresponding behavioral forms can solve tasks where others cannot. If an individual or any scale of social interaction has the inability to solve a task, we have a reliable means to contextualize it, empirically. It is a model of universal patterns of behavior that help inform us how to move development along.

C.

On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:43 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen <[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.

Yes, what would be the purpose?

On 29-01-2022 19:37, Cory David Barker 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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement

C.

On Jan 29, 2022, at 12:26 PM, Lene Rachel Andersen <[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.

What would be the purpose of measuring?

On 29-01-2022 18:46, Cory David Barker 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.

Yes, I worked on several papers with him, including one on it’s axioms and fundamental mathematics. MHC measures behavior, it is not mentalistic, which is to say MHC measures actions, and does not make assumptions about interior action that cannot be directly observed. Anywhere there are organisms, social interactions, or machines, MHC is universally applicable across domains. MHC is domain-free, and would therefore measure the observable behavioral performance of the construction and application of things like investment theory, justification systems, and the Chomsky hierarchy.

Michael Commons did write on stage and value. Sara Ross and Michael Commons wrote some papers on hierarchical complexity of politics too. I carried these kinds of things over when Saranya Ramakrishna, myself, and others wrote the paper on behavioral complexity of immigrant and native behaviors towards each other. Saranya and I scored the complexity of spiral dynamics, but we ran out of space and didn’t include it. It turns out that spiral dynamics does line up with MHC stages, more than less. But again, MHC is domain-free, so values themselves are contents of behaviors, what behaviors operate on and with, and therefore value motivated behavior only has association with an MHC stage where it is observable. So we wouldn’t say a value is a specific stage per se, but just say a value is observed to be enacted at this or these stages.

C.

On Jan 28, 2022, at 11:29 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 Cory. That’s pretty deep stuff. Much of this I imagine comes from your mentor Commons and some of it you have formulated yourself?

I was figuring, and I think this is what Brendan meant with his original post, that MHC is not really the metric you would use for measuring the complexity of the mind, or for comparing the complexity of the behavioral capability of organism within the mind plane of ToK. I figure that MHC is related, but the implementation of behavioral investment dynamics provides unique phenomena wherein there is more going on than can be explained through task complexity alone. Integrated information Φ would also be related, but I imagine there could be some sort of metric that somehow combines these. This would level of meaning making capability within the organism. The other side of this would be the justification systems, which I figure would correspond more to the “code” inner dimension identified within the Hanzi books. Again, MHC is related, but there is probably more to it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I have to figure that the Chomsky hierarchy has something to do with that, since that is a system wherein grammar systems can be hierarchically ranked in terms of complexity of the language games that they are capable of. I’m only aware of the original version, which would have all human cultural code systems ranked at the top, but perhaps there is an enhanced hierarchy of language games / symbol systems that would offer a more formal metric for measuring the complexity of different cultural code systems.

Brandon

From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Cory David Barker
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2022 1:34 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.

@ Brandon

In order to do measure correctly with MHC, one has to be very specific with no black boxes. There are a couple of architectural levels that would have to get measured – first is the interpersonal level with the individual, interpersonal dynamics between individuals, and overall interpersonal systems consisting of all individuals in the culture. The culture operating as a whole begins a new architectural level (carrying forward interpersonal sub-behaviors), it’s relationship to other cultures, and how that culture interacts in the larger system of cultures in general.

One needs to measure all three, not just by matching stage definitions with behavior, but actually counting the actual complexity stacks and being clear about the transition dynamics at play, because usually people exhibit different stages for different things, and are usually not at equilibrium at a particular stage but are in transition between them.

People’s behaviors are going to score all over the place, but there will be a highest ordering behavior coordinating lower order behaviors, both individually, and as a group. The highest ordering behavior shared by all group members would be its maximum stage of performance, but you wouldn’t end up with a single number for an individual, interpersonal dynamic, or culture, you’d end up with a chart of behavioral complexity distribution.

While there may be some culture members who operate at a higher order of complexity in a given culture, there will typically be others who operate at less complex orders of complexity, whom may downward assimilate the higher order task performance of others in their culture, resulting in complexity loss, because those who have not developed out of latency the higher stage behavioral forms lack the ordering type of complexity required to symmetrically represent what they copy. It can also go in reverse, where people with higher orders of complexity can allow lower, less complex ordering direct the higher order behaviors. This downward and upward thing I’ve been calling diagonal complexity, to go along with horizontal and vertical complexity.

There are more variables to account for of course, but this is the starting point. It’s not impossible to measure, in fact one can eye-ball it in real time if one practices. However, eye-balling it does not produce empirical evidence. No matter how accurate one is, it is still anecdotal in practice, so to get that empirical evidence require considerable effort. Anecdotal eye-balling is okay, just need to be clear about it so it isn’t presented as empirical when it isn’t. Empirical evidence is so important because it can get verified through replication of the instrument that generated the data.

MHC has plenty of math for measuring this sort of thing.

C.

On Jan 28, 2022, at 2:17 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 Nicholas. I’m interested to hear what Gregg might think of this whenever he might have time to comment. I’m kind of thinking that being able to approximately measure the complexity level of the cultural code / justification system and the behavioral investment complexity could help therapists and community leaders diagnose shadow issues and formulate and implement remediation interventions. I can anticipate multiple possible objections to this line of thinking. One would be that this would be just pretty much impossible and it would be a wasted effort at measuring a granularity where there are already many well-established practices that have demonstrated effectiveness in achieving these sorts of positive results and they don’t require anyone to measure these phenomena as such. Also some might object that attempting this sort of thing would simply be counterproductive, either because you’d end up creating some sort of social hierarchy wherein some people are more developed in their cultural code and/or some people have their behavioral investment sorted out better than others. I can see how these metrics could be problematic and difficult to implement. I don’t mean to open Pandora’s box by following this line of inquiry. I have to figure that any psycho-technology or tools for knowledge development could be used in good or bad ways.

Brandon

From: theory of knowledge society discussion <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Lattanzio
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 12:55 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.

Brandon,

I am certain there is pragmatic use for measurement, I am not trying to say that we shouldn't measure or try to predict. What I am saying is that there are already laws of nature which we are under the influence of in such a way that we cannot account for their effect on our measurements. Essentially we need to stay in our lane as much as possible. As with all of us, my entire life I've seen attempt after attempt after attempt to find new ways to model the universe and none of them end up being more than a satisficing proposal. I can accept that there is a model that would work. Again like all of us I live as part and witness to that model all day every day, it's not total chaos. The one thing I have yet to see is what we're actually trying to measure at this point. If we were talking just the physical universe, really most of where we're at now and down the ToK, I could buy into that. But when you say culture is the current metric, what the heck does that mean? What is that? Ostensibly there is some form of mental (mind) existence to culture as ideas and perhaps those ideas have a physical representation that could be measured on the level of biology or physico-chemical, but that doesn't do much other than to deconstruct, it does not shape the approaching critical point in our development other than taking a ruler and beating ourselves over the head with it. Until someone can show me experientially what we're attempting to put into terms/frames of thermodynamics and cybernetics and all sorts of fancy modernist epistemological advances/insights, then I'm not convinced it is meant to be done in that way (e..g., show me an objective unit of culture). Maybe that's the point though, maybe we persist in this until free energy inevitably breaks through or finds the way 'to the next level' by sheer probability. I know I don't know. But I also know it'll happen either way, regardless of what "we" do about it.

Regards,

Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D.

On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 2:18 AM Lene Rachel Andersen <[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.

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://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AkQYgE9O3J2GKVwCiBCVCbhVX88-TOrO/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117491835000953037563&rtpof=true&sd=true

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 - http://www.AudioVideoArts.com/

Photography - http://instagram.com/pickerillphotography/

Art - http://www.TR-Pickerill.com/

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 <[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 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:

<div style="margin: 0in;

############################

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