Stolen ideas
Science research writer Tom Barlett’s 2012 blog article “Stolen Ideas? Or Great Minds Think Alike?” on the so-called Juarrero-Deacon theory plagiarism allegation, the allegation by Cuban-born American philosopher Alicia Juarrero that American neurological anthropologist Terrence Deacon stole her ontic opening dissipative structures emergence theory of intentional behavior. [1]
In debates, Juarrero-Deacon affair or "theory plagiarism allegation case" refers to the 2011-2012 legal-action perused allegation made by Cuban-born American philosopher Alicia Juarrero, formerly a professor of Prince George’s Community College, Maryland, that American neurological anthropologist Terrence Deacon, the current head of the of the University of California, Berkeley, anthropology department, stole or “misappropriated” the bulk of her thermodynamics-based non-reductive materialism theories contained in her 288-page 1999 book Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System, and used them as the basis of his 602-page 2011 book Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter, without citation of her work.

Positions
The following are representative statements by the two sides of the so-called theory plagiarism allegation affair, the first statement by Michael Lissack, the aggressive leader of the Juarrero camp, an American Wall Street whistleblower turned complexity-emergence theorist:

Michael Lissack (13 Sep 2012): [15]

“Our position on this matter is very clear: Terry Deacon is a serial plagiarist and UC Berkeley has no interest in dealing with that ugly truth.”

Terrence Deacon: (29 Feb 2012): [16]

“Hi all (and especially Marianna), I have been directed to your blog by a colleague who noticed the comments about my book and Juarrero’s spreadsheet. This is a nasty business in which Juarrero is spreading false claims suggesting that I have used her ideas without attribution. I have not. I urge you to read both books [17,18], and you will see this for yourself. Although there are indeed superficial similarities, as inevitably occurs in an area of such intense intellectual discussion, these are ultimately quite superficial. I have only recently come to read her book [17] and her one paper [13] on Kant in response to her tirade [19] about not being cited, and it is now clear that I disagree with her approach in far more ways than we agree. This is not just because she is a philosopher and I am a lab scientist by training. I think that we are fundamentally driving at very different ways of explaining almost every aspect covered in my book: life, mind, sentience [feeling/sense], consciousness, information, work, and so forth, even though we both borrow insights from dynamical systems theories and share a criticism of simple eliminative materialism. Nevertheless, once you overcome the accusatory hype of her spreadsheet [3] and actually do compare these two approaches the differences can be quite informative and worth debating. To those of you struggling through the book [18]. I hope that you find the ideas worth the time and teleodynamic work. I can’t promise to be able to keep up with your blog or to have any idea of what OOP is about but I am honored to have initiated some interesting discussions.”

This, in the famous words of English polymath Thomas Young, is scientific warfare at its best! Lissack and his camp, surrounding the work of Alicia Juarrero, is making the "attack" and the unwary, it seems to be, caught off guard Terrence Deacon is now fighting a near long battle of "theory plagiarism" accusations. For those in the "materialism versus emergence" field of debates this is a ripe educational experience, to say the least—particularly being the case that the near tipping point investigation turned legal action law suit, seems to have implications for everyone in science, namely that whenever independent theory overlap occurs, without citation, knowingly or unknowingly aware of the other similar theories, accusations of theory plagiarism may erupt. As Thomas Kuhn as famously pointed out independent theory development does not, however, typically tend to be the result of theory plagiarism, but one of paradigm change.
plagarism report
The opening section of the formal exoneration, by the official investigation of the University of California, Berkeley, of the plagiarism allegations of Deacon made by Juarrero. [28]

Berkeley investigation
In 2012, Robert Price, a political scientist, associate vice "chancellor for research" at the University of California, Berkeley, the person in charge of so-called "research misconduct", assigned two "experts" in the field, whoever these may be, to look into the plagiarism allegations, and report the results of their investigation at the end of a 120-day period. On 22 Jan 2013, the Berkeley investigation committee released its findings, the conclusion of which is as follows: [26]

“After a formal investigation, the University has determined that there is no merit to allegations that you violated the University’s Research Misconduct Policy and Faculty Code of Conduct by committing plagiarism or misappropriating the ideas of others.”

Per the unusual “public nature” of the case, full details of the report can be found online at TerryDeacon.Berkeley.edu.

Plagiarism by negligence
Of note, the Berkeley report overview cites the Hmolpedia “HT pioneers” page, with its 500+ chronological listing of theorists to have applied thermodynamics to questions of human existence, a group to which both Juarrero and Deacon belong (though not yet input into the table, as they are both newly-found theorists, i.e. theorists not found in the 2002-2012 search period construction of the table), as a method of disproof to American Wall complexity-emergence theorist Michael Lissack’s definition of what he calls “plagiarism by negligence”, the gist of which is that anyone now, according to Lissack, in the modern Internet age, who publishes a new idea or theory without first doing a search for previous theorists, is guilty of plagiarism. [27] Specifically, as stated in a 2012 letter to Robert Price, entitled “Subliminal Influence or Plagiarism by Negligence?”, according Lissack: [28]

“There is no excuse, to even tolerate the idea that in the Internet Age it is acceptable … to fail to see what others have written before publishing his own work. Plagiarism by negligence is still plagiarism.”

This idealized view of Lissack, as the Berkeley investigation report explains, is a naïve perspective. The HT pioneers page, in fact, as stated here (31 Jan 2012), took American electrochemical engineer Libb Thims 10-years (2002-2012) to construct and compile, using an exhaustive method of searching, namely: Google Books, Google scholar, libraries, Internet, footnotes, bibliographies, articles, blogs, webpages, etc., and that was after working independently on his own theoretical queries, without worry about what had been done prior to him, for a period of seven years (1995-2001) simply as a personal curiosity. Some HT authors, such as Iranian-born American electrical engineer and material scientist Robert Kenoun (Theory of History and Social Evolution, 2006), to note, choose specifically to avoid a prior read of the extant literature to keep the originality of their work in view. Hence, Lissack’s conception of “plagiarism by negligence”, even if an idea gets into the mind of the author via “subliminal influence”, as Lissack puts it, where the author loses track of or may not be aware of the original seed, is an unreal idealization and hence defamatory in assertion.

Thims investigation
In late 2012, Libb Thims, having previously written Hmolpedia articles on both Juarrero and Deacon, prior to coming across the debate, during the course of research for his Dec 2012 JHT article "Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science's Greatest Sokal Affair", decided, out of basically humor, to make a neutral party go of the investigation. [20] On 1 Jan 2013, Thims has read the Kant paper [13], and is beginning to read, in chronological order, the 1999 Juarrero book and then the 2011 Deacon book to see if there is any truth to the allegations. Thims finished reading both the Juarrero (1999) book and the Deacon (2011) book in early Feb 2013, along the way creating a Google Book search overlapping "key term" usage in each book to account for similarity.

On Jul 2013, following open peer review and debate (Ѻ), Thims, in his “Juarrero, Deacon, Nonreductive Physical Materialism, and Chemical Teleology” (Ѻ), presented his unbiased analysis of the situation.

Overview
In overview—in what seems to be a case of "they stole my theory" paranoia—in 2011 Cuban-born American philosopher Alicia Juarrero asserted, through a series of MIT press legal-action advised communications to Robert Price, associate vice chancellor for research at the University of California, Berkeley, that Deacon misappropriated her theories (in his 2011 Incomplete Nature), as presented in her 1999 book Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System, and those in the 2007 book Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Science of Mind by Canadian philosopher Evan Thompson, who cites Juarrero, an interaction which as she chronologies dates back to 1981, without giving her proper citation credit. [2] The gist of the allegation is depicted as follows:

A
Dynamics in Action (2002)







+
B
Mind in Life (2007)






[?]
C
Incomplete Nature (2011)
Alicia Juarrero (1999) [17]

Evan Thompson (2007)

Terrence Deacon (2011) [18]

In short, Juarrero claims that Deacon culled his theories from Juarrero and Thompson, without citation.

Juarrero's team
To make her case heard, Juarrero teamed up with American Wall Street whistleblower turned complexity-emergence theorist Michael Lissack, who notably in 1994 was awarded $30 million dollars for a Wall Street yield burning scandal, albeit who also notably pleaded guilty in 1996 to second-degree email harassment in another non-related whistle-blowing case, along with Carl Rubino, among others, to get the University of California, Berkeley, to take action, by using mass-email harassment tactics, public websites to showcase the event, among other venues. [4]

Michael Lissack claims to have sent fervent e-mails to more than 1,500 faculty members at Berkeley. Staff members, students, administrators and state legislators have also received the e-mails. [10]

Carl Rubino, a classics professor at Hamilton College, coauthor with Juarrero of the 2010 book Emergence, Complexity, and Self-Organization: Precursors and Prototypes (published by Lissack’s Institute for the Study of Coherence and Emergence), claims that Deacon misappropriated. [11]

Colin McGinn, a British-born American mind-consciousness philosopher, a professor at Juarrero's alma matter (University of Miami), who supposedly was one of Juarrero's PhD advisers, seems to be also on the Juarrero team.

The 2012-launched sites AliciaJuarrero.com (29 Mar 2012) , run by Juarrero, and TheTerryDeaconAffair.com (27 May 2012), run by Lissack, are host and post to all of the related correspondence material surrounding the supposed "misappropriation allegations." [5]

Originality arguments
On 7 Jun 2012, British-born American mind-consciousness philosopher Colin McGinn, a professor at Juarrero's alma matter (University of Miami), who supposedly was one of Juarrero's PhD advisers, published a scathing review of Deacon's book in the New York Times Book review, promoting Juarrero, wherein he alludes indirectly to misappropriation of theory without citation as follows: [12]

“There is in fact hardly an original idea in [Deacon’s] book. Two works, in particular, stand out in the prior literature: Dynamics in Action by Alicia Juarrero and Mind and Life Mind and Life by Evan Thompson. Neither book is cited by Deacon, although they cover much the same ground as his—far more lucidly and insightfully.”

One of the problems here, citation issues aside, in regards to originality, is that very few theories in the hmolsciences, specifically in the area of attempts to explain "mind" in the context and framework of materialism and physicalism are original. Only theorists fundamentally trained in the hard physical sciences, which is not the case here, are able pen out an original theory straight from chemistry and physics, without making a prior read of the existing literature.

A rare few notable examples of the latter case include: Iranian mechanical engineer and thermodynamicist Mehdi Bazargan (Human Thermodynamics,1956), South African chemical physicist Adriaan de Lange (Entropy, Creativity, and Learning, 1987), Iranian-born electrical engineer and material scientist Robert Kenoun (A Proposition to Theory of History and Social Evolution, 2006), and most-recently and impressively American physicist and computer scientist Wayne Angel (Theory of Society, 2007) who rips an equation-rich subject he he calls “relation thermodynamics” directly from American physicist Herbert Callen’s 1960 Thermodynamics textbook, without citation of anyone.

These few rare examples aside, the majority of mind from matter (life from matter, consciousness from matter, purposive from matter, etc.) theories are cull theories, a good estimate, based on a look at the 500+ HT pioneers, would indicate that over 90-95 percent are cull theories, meaning theorists have to cull their ideas from the core theorists. Belgian chemist Ilya Prigogine, both cited by Juarrero and Deacon, is an example of a core theorist, as compared to cull theorist, who derived his theory right from the hard sciences. Juarrero and Deacon, for the most part are cull theorists, e.g. they both cull on the theories of self-organization and autocatalysis—albeit, it seems, in slightly different ways—to argue their mind from matter positions. Cull theorists, invariably, are forced to feed off core theorists. Juarrero, in her 1985 article "Self-Organization: Kant's Concept of Teleology and Modern Chemistry" (which seems to be the backbone to her 1999 book), to exemplify, in her attempt to explain "possessiveness" in a materialistic-deterministic world, culls off the following theorists: [13]

Theorist
Date
Theories

Democritusc.410BCaccidentality mechanism theory (atomic theory)
Epicurusc.300BCaccidentality mechanism theory (atomic theory)
Gottfried Leibnizc.1714mechanistic vera causa theory; hylozoism (panbioism); monad theory (internal force)
David Hume1740pre-Kantian ideas
Johann Blumenbach1781"bildungstrieb" (formational drive)
Immanuel Kant1781teleology and self-organization; living matter as inconceivable (origin of life); external force/internal force theory; hylozoism (panbioism)
Ilya Prigogine1967dissipative structures; order through fluctuations
Ludwig Bertalanffy1968general systems theory
Humberto Maturana1973autopoiesis
Mario Bunge1979emergent properties; holism
Milan Zeleny1980autopoiesis; holism; origin of life (first autopoietic system)
Erich Jantsch1980self-organization; autocatalysis; allopoietic systems; autopoietic systems; consciousness
Joseph Earley1981autocatalyticity

All of Juarrero's theory, at this point, mixed together, is what is classified as an ontic opening melting pot theory, an attempt to derive an anti-reductionism model of teleology (puposiveness) within the framework of materialism. Hence, Juarreo's claim to originality, at this point, is a bit tenuous.
STARS conference speakers (2007)
Keynote speakers, Terrence Deacon, second from left, and Alicia Juarrero, right, at the STARS conference lectures in Cancun in January 2007, one of the points of contact between the two; they both presumably listed to each other’s lectures; Juarrero specifically states that Deacon was in the audience during her lecture.

Facts
Juarrero points out that Deacon attended one of her STARS conference lectures in Cancun in January 2007, they are shown seated near each other in the adjacent photo of the conference. Juarrero claims that that sometime therein they met in person. [7] Lissack says he gave a copy of Juarrero’s book to Deacon a few years ago at a conference; though Deacon says this is not true. [1]

In commentary on these so-called "facts", listed here according to Juarrero's perspective, Deacon states his position, in regards to these alleged facts, as follows: [25]

“The "facts" listed [above] aren't in fact true. Lissack did NOT provide me with a copy of Juarrero's work (there are many witnesses to this). I presented the core theory from Incomplete Nature at the conference that was also attended by Juarrero (and my slides were made public by the organizers). I do not believe in top-down causality. I criticize the dynamical systems approach. I develop a fundamentally re-worked understanding of information that is not Shannonian. I am not an anti-reductionist. I find phenomenology vacuous. And I explicitly demonstrate why self-organization is insufficient for an account of life much less mind.”

Theory overlap allegations
Juarrero, interesting, has produced a five-page spreadsheet where, according to her, supposedly, there are 243 instances of concept, term, theory, or idea misappropriation. [3] The gist of Juarrero’s misappropriation claim seems to boil down to the her view that Deacon stole the following eleven ideas from her, as she explains in a 25 Jan 2012 letter to Thomas Barlett, an editor of The Chronicle of Higher Education:

“I need to emphasize that Deacon's theses—and the arguments he presents to back up those theses—track mine practically from beginning to end (without my emphasis on action theory, and certainly without his neologisms!). We're not just talking of a few selected passages here and there that are similar. My central ideas and argumentation permeate Deacon's book from beginning to end, as the spreadsheet shows. Here are the two books' main theses:

1. Newtonian mechanical (efficient) causality cannot account for end-directedness and goal-directedness (teleology, purposiveness) –or agency, intentionality (consciousness, sentience). So attempts to reduce the latter to the former won't work.
2. Aristotelian formal and final causes used to serve this purpose but not an option since the enlightenment/scientific revolutionKant knew that, however, and associated teleology with intrinsic finality/self-organization. Prigogine's discovery of dissipative structures provides a scientific respectable understanding of teleology as self-organization. I published this material in 1985.
3. Best to reconceptualize causality in other terms
4. Consider information theory and entropy in thermodynamics can help—especially Prigogine/self-organization/far from equilibrium thermodynamics (complex systems), and self-organization, especially autocatalysis. Autocatalysis embodies formal cause and constitutes a proto-self through the implementation of intrinsic constraints. Far from equilibrium thermodynamics do not violate the first law.
5. Part-whole and whole-part context-sensitive/dependent constraints (redundancy) can account for mereological causality (bottom up constraints are enabling, expand degrees of freedom); top-down second/higher order constraints—from whole to part—are restrictive)—differences between physical, chemical and biological constraint production and operation do not obviate the similarities and both can account for "whole to part causality"—these in turn embody formal and final causes without reduction or remainder.
6. The workings of constraint in both cases are changes in probability/frequency distribution—this dissolves the Maxwell demon problem by making the demon an internal. Second law of thermodynamics is thereby upheld too.
7. [Points] 5 and 6 above are best understood as ontogenetic and phylogenetically constructed dynamical attractors and can be pictured topologically. Doing so dissolves the semantics/syntax (meaning-grammar) problem—answers Searle's Chinese room objection.
8. The self, free will, and individuality are best reconceptualized and understood as the operations of complex dynamical constraints.
9. Dynamical constraint operation is irreducible to matter/energy considerations. There is decoupling between levels due to multiple realizability feature of higher level constraints. Hence emergence is ontological.
10. Agency and intentional causation are the exercise of whole-part dynamical constraints
11. Biological constraints are semiotic; interpretive since there is no sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph identities, in order to make a determination that my main claims and arguments have been appropriated there is no other way than to read both books carefully and in their entirety—using the spreadsheet's identification of specific page references in both books for assistance.

Juarrero seems to think she has some kind of intellectual property rights patent on concepts such as: Kant's theories, Prigogine thermodynamics, autocatalysis, far-from-equilibrium models, holism, emergence, anti-reductionism, Maxwell's demon exorcisms, attractor theories, Shannon bandwagon theories, free will theories, among others. This, however, is not the case. Her so-called idea number four, above, namely: "autocatalysis embodies formal cause and constitutes a proto-self through the implementation of intrinsic constraints", for example, dates back to the 1920s, such as in the works of Alfred Lotka (1920) and Gilbert Lewis (1925), to name two examples, and their similarly-aligned attempts to explain human existence in physical science terms. All of Juarrero's so-called "original" 1980s theories, in fact, have independent, forerunners, if not prototypes.
physical origins
Deacon's August 2007 chapter "The Physical Origins of Purposive Systems", co-authored with Jeremy Sherman, that Cuban-born American philosopher Alicia Juarrero claims, via legal action, he misapproprated from her lecture in Cancun seven months prior. [9]

Discussion
That Deacon wrote a 602-page book after listening to one of Juarrero's 2007 lectures, however, is a big jump.

This conclusion is corroborated by the fact that Deacon by August of 2007 had published (in print) a co-authored chapter of his ideas, table of contents shown adjacent, entitled “The Physical Origins of Purposive Systems”, in a collaborative multi-author book Embodiment in Cognition and Culture, which as anyone knows who has ever published in a collaborative-chapter book is not a project that makes it into Amazon books within a seven-month window, but rather is a year or more effort.

These details aside, there does not seem to be any connection between the two, theory overlap aside.

The overlap in theory between books A and C seems to a repercussion of the fact that they are both irreducible (anti-reduction) emergence theorists, in favor of the top down approach (over the bottom up approach), who both similarly argue from a Prigogine thermodynamics + information theory (Shannon bandwagon) platform, and both seem to be of the view that the mind is irreducible to the level of matter.

The HT pioneers page alone lists a mixture of some 500+ theorists who argue in or about this neighborhood of reasoning, hence it is no surprise that book A and book C are similar in argument structure; this however, does not imply plagiarism or misappropration, but rather a theory of theory overlap.

Is it Plagiarism
Is it Plagarism (21 votes)
Cuban-born American philosopher Alicia Juarrero's 2012 "Is it Plagiarism?" poll (left) with vote count as of 17 Dec 2012, which show that 81% of voters (at her cite) think she is either paranoid or that the similarity is a repercussion of the fact that they work in the same field. [7]

Paranoia?
Juarrero, a community college professor, who promotes her book as "the first book by a community college professor to be published by MIT Press", seems to give the impression of a self-perceived underdog, so to speak, not getting the public credit for an independent common theory that someone at a higher ranked big league university is getting.

This seems to be corroborated by the fact that in her timeline of events, Juarrero seems to give indication to the idea that she also believes that Stuart Kauffman, in his 1995 At Home in the Universe: the Search for the Laws of Self-Organization and Complexity, stole theories from her 1985 article "Self-Organization: Kant's Concept of Teleology and Modern Chemistry". [6]

The siding with Deacon, in the conclusion that Juarrero is paranoid, however, is strengthened by the fact that the above paranoid conclusion sentence (this seems to be a case of "they stole my theory" paranoia) was typed out before coming across the fact that in 29 Mar 2012, Juarrero actually launched a site called AliciaJuarrero.com, where in she has a "am I paranoid poll" running, shown adjacent. [8]

Lissack allegations
Related to Juarrero plagiarism allegations, on 17 Oct 2012, American emergence-complexity theorist Michael Lissack, formerly sent in a complaint to Robert Price of the University of California, Berkeley, that Deacon plagiarized his meme as a ‘sign’ for an ‘environmental niche’ theory, from his 2003 article “The Redefinition of Memes: Ascribing Meaning to an Empty Cliché”, using it without appropriation for the content of his 2004 chapter ‘Memes as Signs in the Dynamic Logic of Semiosis: Beyond Molecular Science and Computation Theory.’ [14]
Sun Earth systems (Roland, Schneider)
Two similar photon mill diagrams: Polish-born Canadian physicist Marek Roland's 1992 version and Americans ecologist Eric Schneider's 2005 version, the latter of which Roland claims Schneider copied without permission or citation, whereas correctly the hot/cold photon mill concepts predates both of them, particularly in the 1988 work of German physical evolutionists Werner Ebeling, Rainer Feistel, and Andreas Engel. [21]

Roland comparison example
A comparative “tirade about not being cited” example, to give some neutral perspective bearing on the above Juarrero-Deacon affair, are the multiple 2011 Hmolpedia thread posting complaints by Polish-born Canadian physicist Marek Roland that Americans ecologist Eric Schneider and science writer Dorion Sagan, in their 2005 book Into the Cool, stole his hot photon / cold photon earth-sun system depiction (both versions shown adjacent). In multiple 2011 Hmolpedia thread posts, and in other related email communications, Roland stated: [22]

“It seems that in the book Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics, and Life ideas and drawings from my 1992 paper "Life on Earth: Flow of Energy and Entropy" are used without my permission or due credit.”

In another thread Roland states: [23]

“’Hot’ and ‘Cold’ photons concepts were explained in my paper 1992 paper "Life on Earth: Flow of Energy and Entropy". None of the authors above got my permission to use it or to re-work my diagram.”

The similarity between the Roland allegation and Juarrero allegation is striking. Indeed, Roland is not cited in Schneider's book. The diagrams are strikingly similar. The titles of both article and book are nearly synonymous. Schneider and Roland both are energy/entropy flow life theorists. Perhaps Schneider copied Roland without proper credit?

Yet, detailed comparative investigation shows, however, that all of these conceptual theories are not original that the hot-cold photon diagram model predates them both, specifically being found in the 1988 diagram work of German physical evolutionists Werner Ebeling, Rainer Feistel, and Andreas Engel. [21] Hence, the rant by Roland about theory and diagram stealing becomes rather puerile—particularly being that Roland actual cites the 1992 article “Theory of Self-organization and Evolution: the Role of Entropy” by Ebeling and Feistel, which is no doubt from where he got is diagram and ideas from and no doubt Schneider independently arrived at his ideas as commonly happens to theorists working in the same area. [24]

Other comparisons
Historically similar scenarios, comparable to the above, might include the way that Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace both arrived at the same evolution theory coincidentally. The famous Newton-Leibniz controversy over who gets credit for the invention of calculus, Isaac Newton or Gottfried Leibniz, seems to come to mind. The famous "who gets credit for discovery of the conservation of energy", James Joule (predominately) or Robert Mayer (work discovered after the case), also seems to come to mind. The thermodynamical nature of the above brings to mind American thermodynamics Harold Morowitz and his expert testimony in the 1982 McLean vs. Arkansas (evolution vs. creation science) lawsuit.

References
1. Bartlett, Tom. (2012). “Stolen Ideas? Or Great Minds Think Alike?”, The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 17.
2. (a) Main – TheTerryDeaconAffair.com.
(b) Chronology of interactions (Deacon and Juarrero) – TheTherryDeaconAffair.com.
3. Deacon-Juarrero (spreadsheet) – Emergence.org.
4. Bailey, Jonathan. (2012). “Publicity for Plagiarism: How Far is Too Far?”, iThenticate.com, Oct 24.
5. (a) Main – TheTerryDeaconAffair.com.
(b) Dynamics in Action – AliciaJuarrero.com.
6. (a) Chronology of interactions (Deacon and Juarrero) – TheTerrenceDeaconAffair.com.
(b) Roque, Alicia J. (1985). “Self-Organization: Kant’s Concept of Teleology and Modern Chemistry” (abs), The Review of Metaphysics, 39(1):107-35.
7. (a) Juarrero emails (2011) – TheTerryDeaconAffair.com.
(b) Juarrero, Alicia. (2007). “Top-Down Causation as the Operation of Context Sensitive Constraints”, Talk at CTNS Conference, Cancun, Jan.
8. Dynamics in Action – AliciaJuarrero.com.
9. Deacon, Terrence and Sherman, Jeremy. (2007). “The Physical Origins of Purposive Systems”, in: Embodiment in Cognition and Culture (editor: John Krois, Mats Rosengren, Angela Stiedele, and Dirk Westerkamp) (§1.1, pgs. 3-26). John Benjamins Publishing.
10. Tilsley, Alexandra. (2012). “Publicizing (Alleged) Plagiarism”, InsideHigherEd.com, Oct 22.
11. (a) Tilsley, Alexandra. (2012). “Publicizing (Alleged) Plagiarism”, InsideHigherEd.com, Oct 22.
(b) Juarrero, Alicia and Rubino, Carl A. (2010). Emergence, Complexity, and Self-Organization: Precursors and Prototypes (abs). ISCE Publishing.
12. (a) McGinn, Colin. (2012). “Can Anything Emerge from Nothing?; Review: Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter by Terrence Deacon”, The New Yorker Review (pgs. 65-66), Jun. 7.
(b) Colin McGinn – Wikipedia.
13. Roque, Alicia J. (1985). “Self-Organization: Kant’s Concept of Teleology and Modern Chemistry” (abs), The Review of Metaphysics, 39(1):107-35.
14. (a) Lissack-Price correspondence (22, 26 Oct, 2012) – theDeaconAffair.com.
(b) Lissack, Michael R. (2003). “The Redefinition of Memes: Ascribing Meaning to an Empty Cliché”, Emergence, 5(3):48-65.
(c) Michael Lissack – Wikipedia.
(d) Deacon, Terrence. (2004). “Memes as Signs in the Dynamic Logic of Semiosis: Beyond Molecular Science and Computation Theory”, in: Conceptual Structures at Work: 12thInternation Conference on Conceptual Structures (editors: Wolff, K.e, Pfeiffer, H.D., and Delugach, H.S.) (pgs. 17-30). Springer.
15. Lissack, Michael. (2012). “Blog response”, in: “The Terry Deacon Affair”, Seth’s Blog, Sep. 12.
16. Deacon letters – TheTerryDeaconAffair.com.
17. Juarrero, Alicia. (1999). Dynamics in Action: Intentional Behavior as a Complex System (thermodynamics, 29+ pgs). MIT Press.
18. Deacon, Terrence W. (2011). Incomplete Nature: How Mind Emerged from Matter (thermodynamics, 111+ pgs). W.W. Norton & Co.
19. Juarrero emails (2011) – TheTerryDeaconAffair.com.
20. Thims, Libb. (2012). “Thermodynamics ≠ Information Theory: Science’s Greatest Sokal Affair” (§: You Stole My Maxwell’s Demon, pgs. 87-88), Journal of Human Thermodynamics, 8(1): 1-120, Dec 19.
21. Ebeling, Werner, Engel, Andreas, and Rainer, Feistel. (1990). Physik der Evolutionsprozesse. Akademie-Verlag.
22. (a) Life on Earth (30 May 2011) – Hmolpedia thread.
(b) Life on Earth (31 May 2011) – Hmolpedia thread.
23. Hot and Cold photons concept (31 May 2011) – Hmolpedia threads.
24. (a) Roland-Mieszkowski, Marek. (c.1992). “Life on Earth: Flow of Energy and Entropy” (PDF), Digital Recordings.
(b) Ebeling, Werner and Rainer, Feistel. (1992). “Theory of Self-organization and Evolution: the Role of Entropy” (abs), Journal of Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics, 17(4):303-332.
25. Email communication with Libb Thims (15 Jan 2013).
26. Fleming, Graham. (2013). “Administration Response”, Vice Chancellor for Research, University of California, Berkeley, Jan 22.
27. Plagiarism Investigation Exonerates Terrence W. Deacon – TerryDeacon.Berkeley.edu.
28. Lissack, Michael. (2012). “Subliminal Influence or Plagiarism by Negligence?”, Letter to Robert Price, Dec 20.

Further reading
● Kay, Asher. (2012). “Review: Deacon, McGinn, and the Problem of Cross-Disciplinary Communication Disorder”, DeadVoles.WordPress.com, May 23.

TDics icon ns