Well, almost the mind anyway.

Skinner's philosophy was thoroughly dehumanising and in any case had also been discredited by the mid 1960's. 'Operant conditioning' has some application in various forms of behaviour modification therapy such as recovery from addiction etc but as a philosophy of existence, embodies the very worst of scientism and positivism, and treats human beings as a species of animal. (Skinner and his predecessor J B Watson were the intellectual forbears of Daniel 'Moist Robot' Dennett who likewise argues that the first person perspective is fundamantally illusory.)

I don't put any stock into claims that theories have been discredited. I like to see what works. A behaviouralist approach to physchology has many merits and may be a back door into mind. If we can find the back door we can link mind with semiotics and take a big step closer to clearing up the mess of the transition from non-life to life.

Human beings are a species of animal. When I look around I find no unique difference that separates us. I see our splinter skill of reasoning, and the application of that reasoning, but animals have splinter skills too, not just us.

I see the full repertoire of emotions in animals. I can communicate with them in a sentient way.
How are people different to animals in your opinion?

When I look around I find no unique difference that separates us. — MikeL

H Sapiens has language, rational thought, builds technology, and is quantifiably and qualitatively different to any other type of creature in all of those regards. This is just one of the dogmas of moderniism, that humans are no different to animals, but it's a patent fallacy.

Oh, and Skinner didn't believe that the mind is real.

Oh, and Skinner didn't believe that the mind is real. — Wayfarer

Just because I like his ideas doesn't mean I'm going to dress up as him and run around. A good idea is a good idea if it fits the situation well. I think Operant Conditioning deserves another look in relation to semiotics, and working out the kinks so that those of us who wish to can connect it to mind.

I think the greatest failure of the modern world, or perhaps the human world, is the belief that we are superior to animals. We are born into a world (souding a bit Matrix like here) that is disconnected from nature by the constructions of the generations before us. Constructions that have arisen out of the complex reasoning that is our splinter skill. Other animals can fly, some can use echolocation - we don't naturally have those things.

Animals are pets, things in a zoo or on a nature doco. But if you watch closely the nature clips, especially on YouTube, you will see a complex order out there driven by mixed emotions and drives and heirarhy. If you pay attention to the animals you pass on your daily jog, you will see the sentience in them. Apart from reason and applied reason, there is nothing I can see that separates us.

Can you give an example that is not based on reasoning or applied reasoning to support the idea that humans being no different to animals is a patent fallacy?

You should get your dog to reply. Or your chicken. Then I would have to pay attention.

My dog can't touch type unfortunately, otherwise I would put him on. Splinter skill I'm afraid. But he did reply when I went outside with his lead this afternoon. He replied when he saw I was cross with him for eating my slipper. He spoke sharply to the postman the other day, and asked me if I was serious when I told him he could come inside yesterday.

If the distinction between rational sentient beings and other life forms escapes you, then I'm afraid there's simply no point in the discussion, because whatever is said, will simply be rationalised away in a similar manner.

That sounds a bit like the rationale a behaviouralist might use. No depth to the mind. Have you heard of Operant Conditioning?

I don't put any stock into claims that theories have been discredited. I like to see what works. A behaviouralist approach to physchology has many merits and may be a back door into mind — MikeL

It is not a back door. Quite simply, it is teaching the cellular minds and the bigger minds (Sheldrake's moronic resonance forms) new habits or new ways of seeing things. It requires lots of patience and repetition to change habits (which is one way to look at philosophical inquiry). If there is a fundamental problem with Skinner's approach is that it makes it to mechanical and goal oriented. Change takes creativity and patience, after all there are lots of cells that need to learn something new and work together in a new way. Athletes will attest to this.

Also, feel free to drop semiotics whenever you get bored with it. It is just a little mind dressed up with a new name.

Agreed. It is a cause and effect model of understanding behaviour, which could be extrapolated into explaining evolution or why we begin to identify sentient behaviours in cells etc. Behaviour can also be mapped to mind. The bridge may be out for now between Skinner and.... Freud? but it's a much narrower stream to ford.

So, when you suggest not a back door, do you mean no door or front door?

o, when you suggest not a back door, do you mean no door or front door? — MikeL

Yes. It is all mind.

It is important to understand the process of being accepted and getting ahead in academia - no mind! For this reason, rather strange and esoteric concepts such as operant conditioning, semiotics, etc. are introduced by researchers, so as to avoid the use of the word mind. As I said elsewhere, it is a game of hide and seek. Mind is always there, but the word is verboten. If you use it, then no tenure! In academic research materialism = career. Unless you are seeking some tenured position or some acceptance by materialist, feel free to use mind whenever it seems appropriate. After all, it is us.

It forms a logical scaffold for me so that I can climb from atoms to mind. I like the semiotics idea, that there is function/purpose beyond the atoms. The next hurdle after semiotics is explaining intentionality. In these very low layers, intentionality is identified by behaviour.

Now, we know that Operant Conditioning, a branch of psychology - the study of the mind (just to emphasise the point), looked at these cause and effect behaviours through the lens of psychology - so there is an important link. We are now up to the level of the mind in explaining the transition from non-life to life.

The final nail then is to bridge behaviour and mind and we will have a working model.

there is function/purpose beyond the atoms. — MikeL

Yes, there the the mind. Don't allow yourself to be conditioned not to use it. :)

he next hurdle after semiotics is explaining intentionality. — MikeL

There is really no hurdle, it is simply the mind. The only hurdle is trying to come up with a phrase that replaces the word mind, and then of course hiding it in thousands of words of meaningless sentences. Just use the word, and simplify your life. Or you can play the game of hide and seek. It's up to you. I'm a pretty straightforward guy when it comes to life.

The only hurdle is trying to come up with a phrase that replaces the word mind — Rich

Not a phrase, an explanation that unites.

I take your point on its all mind, or life force. That is not in dispute here. The fact that these happenings are occuring in the face of Thermodynamics is powerful testimony. It is the driving force.

So now, the exciting journey is to track the emergence from what seems like inanimate matter to what we know is our own mind. What are the steps along the way? How does it all unfold? How does mind do it?

Not a phrase, an explanation that unites. — MikeL

There is nothing to unite. It is a unity. Matter can be considered decayed mind. Mind is fundamental.

There are many interesting things to discover in the world, mind isn't one of them. You can hide mind away if you wish can and then look for it, but after awhile it gets too repetitive and boring. That is why chess was created.

Discovering music, dance, etc. may be far more interesting. Still, hide and seek is also a nice game.

There is nothing to unite. It is a unity. — Rich

I agree. The goal is not to unite atoms with mind per se, but rather shine a light on the unity so we can understand it in a new fascinating way. For me, at least, shining the torch around and trying to link things that might not appear to be linked at first glance is exciting. Working on the project with other minds is great fun.

It's the exploration and discovery of it I love. Once the story is fully known, my interest level plummets

Discovering new art, music, dance, etc. may be far more interesting. — Rich

Talking about these ideas is my art, music and dance, all rolled into one. :)
.

but rather shine a light on the unity so we can understand it in a new fascinating way. — MikeL

Yes, but if you wish to be creative, then you have to be creative - and very patient. Creativity takes time. In a way replacing one word with 10,000 words and then inviting people to find mind within that morass is creative - by the people who are doing the seeking.

Bergson had an enormous intuition which took him many decades to develop and from that came some fascinating new ways to look at the creative mind. That is creativity.

nigger

nigger

ou have two distinct forms of information in your description. You have information within the dissipative structures and you have information within the semiotics. There's a big gap between these two, because in "semiotics" information is a property of matter, and in your "dissipative structures" information is supposed to be prior to matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

To ungarble this, the story is that there is indeed the two things of semiotic information and dissipative degrees of freedom in my approach (which is also the mainstream information theoretic view, so not some personal theory).

The semiotic information acts causally as the constraints on substantial being. In Hylomorphic terms, it represents the top-down formal and final causes.

Then the physical degrees of freedom are the bottom-up material and efficient causes.

Substantial being emerges as the third thing of their interaction. As hylomorphism argued long ago.

So while I appreciate your attempt at parody, it failed by not understanding what it hoped to mock.

You are very good at replying why being a state of matter shouldn't feel like anything. Likewise a state of information.

But you go curiously silent on the question of why wouldn't a lived neural model of the world feel like something?

Hmm.

In case you hadn't noticed, or more likely refuse to acknowledge as an inconvenient fact, Psychology and Sociology are sciences which investigate phenomena that are not physical. — Galuchat

In case you hadn't noticed, my physicalism is semiotic. So as science, or indeed metaphysics, it starts from psychology and sociology.

I'm not sure why that makes you so angry. You claim to be a fan of semiotics yourself. Did you want to be the only one, or something?

@apokrisis
Have you looked at this challenge to Landauer? Odd coming right on the heels of this.

Let me see if I've got this straight then.

The semiotic information acts causally as the constraints on substantial being. In Hylomorphic terms, it represents the top-down formal and final causes. — apokrisis

If I understand correctly, substantial being exists only as the result of constraints. So semiotic information must be prior to substantial being, as the cause of it, or else you are assuming some constraints which are prior to semiotic constraints, which are responsible for substantial being which is prior to semiotic constraints. I assume the latter is your position, because you asked me about matter coming into existence from energy. I take it that this matter constitutes substantial being which is prior to semiotic constraints.

Then the physical degrees of freedom are the bottom-up material and efficient causes.

Substantial being emerges as the third thing of their interaction. As hylomorphism argued long ago. — apokrisis

Wait a minute, now I'm confused. Substantial being emerges from the interaction between material and efficient causation. Isn't substantial being necessary for, and therefore prior to both of these? There cannot be matter without substantial being, nor can there be efficient causation without substantial being. So unless you've figured out a way to reverse these brute facts, I think you should reconsider what your saying. In the case of material cause, how do you propose that there is matter which does not have substantial existence? In the case of efficient causation, what could possibly be the cause, or the effect, if there is no substantial existence?

So while I appreciate your attempt at parody, it failed by not understanding what it hoped to mock. — apokrisis

I'm not attempting to mock, or parody, I am only pointing out to you how you have your ontological priorities reversed. You ought to take a good look at what is being pointed out to you by myself as well as others, and address the problems which are extremely evident in your metaphysics. Whether it is your approach, or you are just copying from "the mainstream information theoretic view" is irrelevant. These problems render the approach completely untenable without substantial restructuring. You ought to be able to justify the principles which you espouse, and if not, you should recognize that this is a problem.

Should we really be assuming physical causation as a valid assumption at all? Perhaps the issue is more about that which is perceived and that which perceives and not so much about the assumptions you posit which assume a host of fallacies.

There seems to be a lot of semantic games here for what appears to be a relatively simple idea. Unless I'm missing something, Apokrisis is providing the pivot we need to understand the transition from non-life to life. Semiotics allows us to jump track from chemistry to biology by considering function over form. In doing so it does not abandon chemistry, but considers its role in function.

Molecule (a construction of atoms without purpose) --> Molecule (same molecule, but serving a function [open-close the ion channel])

We can now talk about purpose and intentionality and behaviour. The process can still be explained in the cause-effect terms of chemistry.

For those who are interested:

https://www.academia.edu/3848148/Holoinformational_Consciousness_An_Extension_of_Interactive_Dualism_with_Anticipatory_Parameters


Taking yet in consideration the basic mathematical property of holographic systems in which the information of the whole system is distributed in each part of the system, plus Bohm’s holographic quantum physics data, and the experimental data of the holonomic theory of Pribram, we propose that this universal interconnectedness could permit us to access all the information [35-37] codified in the wave interference patterns existing in all the universe since its origin. The quantum-holoinformational nature of the universe interconnects each part, each brain-consciousness, with all the information stored in the holographic patterns distributed in the whole cosmos, in an indivisible irreducible informational cosmic unity [38-40].As a consciousness exercise, analogous to Einstein’s thought experiments, we could compare this universal informational interconnectedness with the following metaphoric quotations from various spiritual traditions:
As above so below (Alchemy).
All that is outside is inside (Upanishads).
The father is inside us (Christianity)
. As in the earth so in the heavens (Christianity).

This universal interconnectedness could be perfectly understood as a Cosmic Holographic Consciousness.

Since when does a tube of chemicals view themselves as having a function?

Agreed, that the idea is very simple and simplistic. Chemicals are coming to life and are working together each with its on functions. It's just assembly line of little humans. This is not a bridge. It is a giant leap of fantasy. I believe this is called anthropomorphism. In your story, you are bringing chemicals to life, step, by step simply by attributing aspects of consciousness to chemicals. It's simple because all you need are nouns, adjectives and verbs.

Thanks for pointing that interesting result out. My three immediate thoughts are:

1) The claim is that Landauer's Planck-based limit was violated, and yet still, it is not zero cost computing. Energy still has to be expended to erase a bit of information. So less energetic cost is not no energetic cost. Landauer's principle stands, even if his calculation of the limit might be faulty.

2) Then there look to be possible concealed costs in the circuit set-up. It is an odd semi-analog device where the inputs are electrostatic forces and the output is the degree of bending in a bit of metal.

So one concealed cost could be wear and tear on the bending metal. Eventually it might break from mechanical fatigue, or melt due to heat build up in its metallic bonds.

3) Then the other loophole would be that the bending of a metal cantilever as the output is an analog response which has to be converted into a digital input by being "read correctly" by the next metal cantilever in the chain.

I wonder if instead of an entropic cost, this means there is a steady information loss. Being analog and so continuous, no two "reading the output" acts might be exactly the same. It would be hard to rule out some environmental effect that causes the next metal cantilever to react fractionally before or after the "proper degree of bending" had been achieved.

So maybe a whole bit is not being reliably propagated in this hybrid set up. There is a steady information leakage which means less energy would have to be expended to erase "a bit".

My money is still on Landauer being right. It was such an elegant result.