Measurement is merely the labeling of quality to abstract information. That information can definitely be used to improve accuracy, quality, quantity, efficiency, effectiveness, what have you. That information cannot tell you whether or not it is *true* or whether or not it is all the information you need to know in a given situation, only that it will tend to lead to a specific outcome. So measurement is inherently a concept limited to the further division of qualia. We may find ways to generate that computational power needed to predict more variables, but we can never escape that measurement itself is abstraction and therefore not a viable explanation of what a thing in itself truly *is*. Awareness precedes measurement and any other qualia, therefore awareness has a more fundamental ontological truth to it than does any measurement of it. Here we have a vicious cycle that to me can only be resolved with a transcendence of measurement as the means of knowing truth. Not transcending measurement itself. Such a process allows us to use abstraction like measurements beneficially since we won't be constantly mistaking the map for the territory anymore, and when 'he numbers don't add up' the whole world doesn't have to stop about it. It's like an analogy Alan Watts used wherein construction workers had lumber, floor plans, tools, everything they needed to build a house, but just sat there all day because there was "a shortage of inches as such." We need inches, but only if they're inches of something. An inch for me will still have a degree of error compared to an inch for you, that error times over 6 billion people = subjective). Even if we agree on the validity of the abstraction because awareness precedes it any abstraction is unreliable as a truth claim. So seeing the world as inches of things becomes a reductionist perspective that when viewed within the evolution of culture and combined with the lower orders of a sense of a self (Animal and Mental, nonconceptual identification with the body) has effectively created a sense of a personal self that (we believe) isn't an abstraction (a map mistaken for territory) which has then further unconsciously driven the justification of our subjective experiential divisions of the territory over others. Now its not even accuracy, its egoic veracity, confusing the relationship between self, culture, and body. It becomes in academia and MENS a harrowing competition that will inevitably lead to its own entropic end. My map is better than yours, my map can't be wrong because then I'm not safe and now feel separate because the idea I held to be truth is seen through and I have no bearings on true reality without my map. If we place more emphasis on the measurement than the thing being measured then we've literally lost our minds, or better put are lost in our minds. Regards, Nicholas G. Lattanzio, Psy.D. On Mon, Jan 31, 2022, 8:03 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. > ------------------------------ > Sorry to hijack this thread but > > Here's a video about Karl Weick's sensemaking, and about the Mitnick (U of > Pittsburgh) and Ryan (me as doctoral student) approach to sensemaking > oriented towards commitment to action. I developed this idea 10 years > ago.... > > Karl Weick's Sensemaking, and the Mitnick/Ryan Skeptical Believer Model - > YouTube > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3Dn4lY2BnvMJw&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=lm5TRQLXmxVOsIFPMsdl5TfmKHIAkzc1yTuuNA8csA8&s=Id4U-4JfdQEiCA6B4mmoZcrwP4UGhNWfhk_WKMN1jeg&e=> > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 12:31 PM Daniel Popa <[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 want to expand on this, if I may, I want not to bother. >> >> The TOK itself is a system, every atom is a system, the relativity theory >> explains many systems, the many theories that explain the way the physical >> world works could also be considered to make up a theoretical system. So >> everything is a system, and the reality itself is the biggest system >> including every system that exists. Systems theory. Furthermore, each >> system interacts with many others simultaneously, in many ways. Each system >> interacts with the subsystems below and the supersystems above, to put it >> that way. The main pragmatical problem is that this interaction gets more >> complex the more interactions there are, and with each new interactio that >> appears, many others spawn in order to connect to it. This leads to the >> exponential growth of complexity, which makes it impossible to grasp the >> accurate actual state of reality and how it works in order to predict very >> complex events. Maybe that is why psychology cannot predict human >> behaviour fully just like physical sciences can predict almost every >> variable that interacts with an apple falling down from a tree. The more >> variables that interact in order to create an outcome, the more complex it >> becomes to predict anything about that specific outcome, precisely because >> of this lack of computational power that Robert stated. Perhaps with a >> smart enough AI, but definitely not with our primitive brains. Nonetheless, >> this also depends on the assumption that any amount of matter could be able >> to process, at least, the amount of complexity that it is made of in >> itself. If this was true, in order to comprehend the whole reality you >> would need a machine made of all the matter that exists. Therefore, the >> single way of doing it would be not to predict anything nor to comprehend >> anything fully, just enough. Back to topic, the most complex system yet >> within the TOK tree would be the justification systems, which I believe is >> the main reason why human behaviour is hard to predict and fully >> understand, and in order to do it, a whole lot more of computational power >> is needed (as well as data) in order to make any hard science reliable >> (that is, p=.01 instead of .05) claims on human behaviour. >> >> First time I speak here, just been reading everything until now, but I >> thought I could contribute with this. >> >> >> Daniel. >> >> >> El sáb, 29 ene 2022 a las 9:27, ryanrc111 (<[log in to unmask]>) >> escribió: >> >>> *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. >>> ------------------------------ >>> 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=bnZ7q1ce7DLNuccni5O8vrfDLPk19Gpds6vqZetjdEw&s=Zn8dcu1R5FvoPmqkgK4U4k72ykJD2ZbE1xYuRVTu-yQ&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=bnZ7q1ce7DLNuccni5O8vrfDLPk19Gpds6vqZetjdEw&s=pT0E_RPP1FDpb2gZDCYsm85MbM0ojU4ZWhrt914UOp8&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 >>> >> ############################ >> >> 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